Another Republican Sex Scandal

Nolo contendere is Latin, and so are a lot of other terms, such as jurisdiction, per diem, per se, vice versa, et cetera.

Anyway, glad he's in jail. Wonder what's happening to the crack-addicted prostitute? She's not a victim, for sure. Definitely should be in prison too. But, since she's not a politician, nobody really cares...

Politicians often get into trouble because they have too much money to do normal things, and they are in the spotlight, so they tend to get caught.

Wonder what's happening to the crack-addicted prostitute?

she's doin 10 years for facillitating.

One can only speculate that Mark Foley, wherever he is hiding out, is glad he isn't alone in the "big tent."

Yeah, child molestation should be a capital crime. But then, let's not forget, though your media has, that "gay child molester" Foley's little tryst turned to be at least of legal age. Or, that the sleazy Democratic operatives---ever concerned for the welfare of THE CHILDREN, of course---suppressed their concern and outrage, and held onto the incriminating e-mails for six months, for full October Surprise effect. Let's talk about another scandal:

WWW Link

error corrected. feel free to make a mountain out of a molehill.

I would have sworn that I was once told by someone that a corruption scandal by a Democrat wasn't necessarily a Dem scandal, it was just a scandal. Given the fact that this isn't about a national politician, or a state politician, or the fact that the crime had nothing to do with the carrying out of his office, etc., I'm surprised (not) that this is called a "republican" scandal.

It could also be noted that he was arrested for this in 2001, and convicted in 2003, and had been in JAIL for years on what was ALREADY a 37 year jail sentence. This was just a few extra charges, the real story was years ago.

The best you can do is a 6 year old case about a guy whose been out of politics for 6 years? Come on, with all the Jefferson stuff, with the Dems turning their back on cleaning up the supposed "culture of corruption", with Pelosi's own ethics problems, with Murtha calling oversight legislation "crap", with Mollohan and Jefferson being handed key roles after being found to be supreme violators of the public trust...

Your bias is showing. You're most certainly not a Libertarian, given that many of the offenses against the Libertarian point of view are being made by Dems, who have the majority, and who are NOT keeping their promises. Your irrational focus betrays your slant. Here you sit, actively being betrayed by Democrats, banging away about a "Republican" that hasn't even been in an office for 6 years. Pathetic, really.

I couldn't see the "nolo" molehill for the mountain of political hypocrisy...

blah, blah, blah...i am on point with the major issues as the libertarian party lists them on their website. and i have written about the ineptness of congress since the dems takeover, even calling for the removal of harry reid, well before anyone else did. you obviously haven't been paying attention, or like the rest of the right wing, just see what you want to see where i am concerned.

my bias is showing? what a joke! the right wing neoconservative bias is shown here every single day. it just pisses you all off that i won't quietly go away like all the other's ya'll have scared off.

someone who is fearless against the neoconservative smear machine is a total threat to ya'll every day. and ya'll show it every day.

keep trashing me folks. keep doin what yer doin...it serves me well. i couldn't make up a better scenario.  

You'd have to be dishonest or insane to look down your list of articles and not see where your focus lies. Look at this article, for heaven's sake. This guy has been in jail for 4 years, and you are still calling it a "Republican" scandal? There are several Dem issues with corruption in the news NOW, and where is your focus? Come on. This is so piddly assed.

You have like a 1:10 or 20 ratio comparing articles critical of Reps verses Dems. This week there are several active stories about how the Dems are choosing not to clean up congress, about Jefferson facing 200+ years of jail time, etc., and you drag up a mayoral from seven years ago? Nah, that's not bias... surely not...

i blasted jefferson and pelosi months ago.

called for reid's removal as maj. leader.

and written other things about problems with the democrats like murtha and jefferson. but what ya'll fail to see is that if anyone on here, esp. me doesn't totally "damn" the democrats in every way shape or form, ya'll try to paint them as a "Liberal democrat" and the like. sorry folks, i'm pretty middle of the road, a social and civil libertarian, fiscally conservative as anyone chap. but when you are tryin to be right of george bush and dick cheney, it's easy to mistake me and others for something we are not. and all the parroting you can muster between the 1/2 dozen or so of ya'll that like to gang up on dissenting views won't change who or what i am.

do i have my biases? sure, everyone does. but just because my bias isn't what you want me to be, doesn't make me dishonest or the person you paint whatsoever. i am who i am. i know who i am and nothing ya'll squak will ever change that.

unlike most, i don't preach like i have some ideology that is right 100% of the time. to me, all ideologies have their flaws, some more than others. i simply call it as i see it. and for the past several years, the most damaging ideology out there has hardly been the liberals. it has been the neoconservative ideology. which i do find to be pompous, arrogant and certainly amongst the most flawed ways of thinking that i know of. so yeah, i do speak more about that than anyone.

was this article a lil gratuitous in its language? sure, that case can be made...but that hardly makes me liberal. and like everyone, i have my days, and my moods. the way i see it. this blurb of an article was me killing time and writing what i felt like writing at the time. the story was interesting to me. it was indeed a republican official. the facts were there. and i brought up foley more because he came to mind and i was kind of wondering what happened to him.

but what is truly arrogant and indeed narcissistic is ya'll. a bunch of rock throwers who really don't have a clue about me trying to tell me who and what i am based on this drivel on here.

get this people...this is FUN for me. it is fun to write stuff. i like to write. i like to ask questions and get people talking. the views i express aren't always how i feel. and sometimes, i am asking questions and ya'll pompously and wrongly read things as me saying that "this is my position" when it isn't. ya'll also like to focus on the red herrings and strawmen in the articles. sometimes i throw stuff in there just to prove that to myself. it's fun for me.

it's also SO telling how ya'll attack me in such a crude and moblike fashion time after time. and each and every one of ya'll go away when i slam you, sit back and wait for someone else to be more clever than they were and try to "git me" on something,,,anything. then they will join a pile on when it seems someone "zinged" me. i can almost predict the patterns of the pilers on.

and it's hilarious for anyone outside of the lil circle to watch.

so, PLEASE... keep doin it. i wouldn't have it any other way. after all, it was ya'll who made me "the King." (sic)

No, I think people outside it are a little weirded out by how you are more and more looking like Col Gene, or by your almost romantic infatuation with Keith Obermann. You've not become more refined, you've just become more apt to run here after seeing some outraged pundit on TV. Look at the blog above, a seven year old case of a mayor gone bad, characterized as a "Republican scandal". The Col would be proud.

It's still pretty silly, since Latin is actually the standard language of law. I'm actually rather surprised you were unaware that the courts use Latin.

Nolo Contendre

Legal term, basically a neutral plead. Simply a method of pleading "guilty" while refusing to admit said guilt.

Basically to say, "Well the evidence seems to demonstrate guilt, and I cannot win. Instead of fighting I plead Nolo Contendre, but still maintain my innocence."

Sorry, but that is just hilarious.  Maybe you should start "standing up" against the far-left smear machine as well.

see,,,these 'Col" comparsons aren't the bombs ya'll think they are. they are only a put down to the neocons around here. as far as i am concerned, the col, who i only got to know of thru ya'll and your rants, does what he does. i've agreed with him and disagreed with him just like you and just about everyone else on here.

the fact is, he is hardly a big ol liberal. he may be a moderate, and to far right, radicalized right wingers, he may look like a liberal to you, but that doesn't make it so. and over the years, ya'll's frustration level measurably grows as more and more people see this administration for what they really are. a bunch of incompetent, at best, ideologues and at worse, the worse bunch of lying crooks we ever gave the key to the white house to.

i know real liberals. and they all think i'm right of stalin sometimes. and the neocons all think everyone who doesn't agree with them is a liberal. so why should that be any different here? the patterns of the ideologies remain.

being against the war is not a liberal position. it is a real conservative one. it is a position held by the libertarian party from day 1. speaking out against habeaus corpus being ripped out of our nation and the constitution being pissed on is hardly a liberal democratic position. just because fox news and rush say it is, doesn't make it so. defending the constitution is an AMERICAN position.

wanting a better and simpler tax system is hardly a liberal position. it is a conservative one.

another note on taxes and gene....when i suggested that i didn't want a tax put on the oil industry but was more interested in their actual competitiveness and wanted that looked into and scrutinized, i was attacked for weeks and told that i supported raising taxes. just more of ya'll seeing what ya'll want to see, and confusing people, issues, stances and just about everything else on here to fit your agendas and biases.

saying i want science to be a bigger determiner in our abortion laws is what the conservatives argue. esp when it comes to fetus viability and the like. just because the science sometimes takes me in another direction, doesn't make me a liberal. it makes me someone looking at a situation, and usually asking questions or looking for more input on a subject.

i could go on and on, but i think you get the point...

you don't get it...really...you don't. sometimes i WANT someone to put up a good argument against what i submit in an article or comment (and sometimes the views are my own, but no one ever asks me which they are in most any article, they just see red and attack). but time and time again, i just end up being insulted and personally attacked and the actual issue is pushed aside. again, those challenges are FUN for me. learning new information is FUN for me.

and again, since i am not an ideologue, there is no issue with me that i wouldn't consider changing on. i'd like to know when we all decided in this country that all views must be established early in life and never changed. when exactly is that age? i'm 40 and see life as a learning experience, where new information can change my view.

hell, i'd even give this administration my support if anyone could give a decent argument as to why. but in 7 years, no one has.

i'll be more than happy to change my views on any other issue, and have said so many times, but no one ever comes up with an actual argument. and when anyone comes close, they always end up trying to "git me" with insults and put downs. some blatant, some backhanded and carefully written as to give plausible deniability (something anyone who has blogged for more than 2 months anwhere is guilty of) when accused. but regardless, i've been doin this a long time, have thicker skin than any annonymous keyboard bully and know how to use it all to my advantage.

so, by all means,,,i'll say it again...keep doin what yer doin.   

It's still pretty silly, since Latin is actually the standard language of law. I'm actually rather surprised you were unaware that the courts use Latin.

yeah it is. my mistake, and it was corrected.

guy and others can attest to the FACT that when someone shows me something is in error, i try to correct it. sometimes i get too tied up in life to go thru the tediousness of correcting small things that have nothing to do with the point of a given piece, but i at least try to throw something in the comments.

this was another example. just a brain fart, something we all do on here and elsewhere. but of course, i am held to an impossible standard. one other error i made was i accidentally deleted one of your comments while cleaning house. it was an insult, but if you wish to type it again, feel free...it was a mistake, not a censor. for those wondering, gid called me a pseudo intellectual cause i made a mistake in this article and incorrectly wrote spanish (i have no idea why i did, maybe because of some distractions in the house) instead of latin. or maybe it had to do with the republican debate notes of mine being in front of me on my desk where they were talking about english being the official language. in any case, it was my error, and it was corrected. the deletion, however, i can't correct. my apologies. i'm sure some will draw a conspiracy out of there, but that is to be expected.

What you don't understand is that the Col thing has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. It is about reflex-level obsession. Go look at the 9/11 conspiracy theorists or the immigration obsessed, or the anti-war people, etc. They span many different levels of liberalism and conservatism, yet when they sink lower and lower they all look like the Col.

You don't have to be liberal, you just have to be infatuated and negatively biased to the point that your opinions come off as knee-jerk. Once you reach that point, your opinions are easily overlooked as just more anti-whatever white noise. You've reached that point with me with Republicans, and this blog is a perfect example as to why.

I don't mind it terribly because this always happens, and more than a year before the election is the perfect time for it to happen. By the time we vote America should be totally numb to this constant drone of political dren, and often creeped out by people who over the years have seemed to become infatuated on a demented level. Their arguments gutted, they become a non-issue.

I was just pointing out that you are flirting with that status. You've stooped to digging up crap like this blog in the face of real offenses by people you don't have as much "fun" criticizing. This is the consummate Col Gene article, and if you can't see that, well, maybe that's a symptom of how far you've fallen.

Really? I can think of one loyal reader you've alienated with your arrogance. I used to read everything you've written, now I read about 25%...and usually regret it.

I'm tired of your condescending lectures on the Libertarian Party as if I needed to be schooled on it. I'm tired of your thinly disguised socialism where you demand smaller government but increased spending. I'm tired of the way you feel you must put other people down to make yourself feel better. Normally I wouldn't have piled on the whole "nolo contendre", but in your case I was happy to make an exception.

Truthfully, Sean, you're the best advertisement for the GOP I can find. Honestly, you've actually singlehandedly caused me to rethink my membership in the LP. Ironically, instead of recruiting, you might actually be pushing members away.

Before you came here, I wrote many articles on the Libertarian Party. Since you've arrived, it is hardly ever a topic I broach. Why? Because, frankly, I do not want to be identified with your ideology. I honestly believe you are a stain on the Libertarian Party, and THAT is a shame.

Don't like what I just said? Tough, I'm being honest.

You don't have to be liberal, you just have to be infatuated and negatively biased to the point that your opinions come off as knee-jerk. Once you reach that point, your opinions are easily overlooked as just more anti-whatever white noise. You've reached that point with me with Republicans, and this blog is a perfect example as to why.

my readership is fine. and if it wasn't , i wouldn't care too much. sure, everyone likes to be read, but my primary motivation is more for myself than anything else. and this article goes to show just how petty and nitpicky the right wing is.


I don't mind it terribly because this always happens, and more than a year before the election is the perfect time for it to happen. By the time we vote America should be totally numb to this constant drone of political dren, and often creeped out by people who over the years have seemed to become infatuated on a demented level. Their arguments gutted, they become a non-issue.

but you are totally righteous in all your political writing? puhlllleaaaasssseeeee!!!!!BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

it's funny that you only see people who disagree with you on the war as beign "knee-jerk" which is rally laughable. we are the only one' swho have maintained a constant and consistant position that is indeed inline with conservative thought. the "knee-jerk" crowd is the one that let this president and congress get into that mistake of a war and policy in the 1st place.

and the same people (like you) are trying to somehow justify and rationalize that the anti war people were still wrong, even when they themselves realize the war was wrong is a total, transparent joke. the fear the republicans who have now come to realize that this war was a huge mistake has got ya'll tripping over your own tails trying to spin it so you can be against the war but not with any of those "anti war people."

just as dick cheney said.... "lectures, legalisms and carefully worded denials."

check back in nov 2008 and we'll see how it's goin then, ok?

unlike others on here, i don't delete articles because my view at a time turned out to be in error. i learn and grow from it.

Don't like what I just said? Tough, I'm being honest.

no, i don't like what you said. it is insulting. you've let your emotions get the better of ya pal. again, feel free to wallow in your ignorance gid.

but next time i'm being "honest" with you. i hope you remember the standards you set.

Before you came here, I wrote many articles on the Libertarian Party. Since you've arrived, it is hardly ever a topic I broach. Why? Because, frankly, I do not want to be identified with your ideology.

that's your choice sparky. but i don't have an ideology. if you had been paying attention, you would know that. but when someone accuses me of being a democrat, which is false, i simply state what my party affiliation is. a while back, i wrote a little about where i agree and disagree with the platform. and as i've shown you AGAIN on the other thread, i agree with the LP on their major issues. it's not like i put their 3 biggest issues on their site so i could point to them, lol. do i disagree with them on some things, sure, we all do. but thre is no ideology. i leave that to the nutjobs who think that a political ideology is like a religion. in the end, you say what you say because of the friends you keep on here, and you admitted that a couple of months back. your personal emotions have clouded your judgement bad, my friend. i could care less if you agree with me or not. like baker, i enjoy debating with you. but you used to bring more to the table than personal grudges against me. and it's a shame you have sacrificed that for so little in return.

but don't worry, i'll probably be leaving the LP next time i go to the DMV. i want to be able to vote in the 08 republican primary. and in my state, independents can't vote.

A Col Gene reaction. You explode, use lots of exclamation points, and just restate the other argument in reverse dragging the same crap out again. In the end, you are sitting here with this steaming little article, and you can't really deny what's up there. It's petty and lame, and exemplifies your level of discourse.

As time goes on, it'll just be worse, because you work on reflex, and the material isn't there. So, you'll either just bang on he same stuff day after day (like Col Gene), or you'll twist stuff like this into some petty statement against Republicans (like Col Gene). Like I say, I'm in no way complaining about you devaluing your little crusade, it works against you the most, I'm just deriding you for doing it.

Please, feel free to explain how this is a Republican scandal, or grab a spoon and eat your little steamer. No doubt you could spend every minute trolling the Internet for registered Republican county clerks and dog catchers that have gotten into trouble, too.

No, I say what I say because I believe it, Sean. The last straw for me was when you came out with your little "Libertarian 101" lecture for me in response to my comment directed towards you. Don't treat me like a child, Sean, I don't do that to you. Oh, and your "King of all Blogging", which is BEYOND pretentious and wholly inaccurate. Self promotion only works when you have something to promote.

The fact is, Sean, when you stick with ideas like UNIVERSAL health care, it is the very antithesis of smaller government. To say "we're going to make government smaller by making it bigger" is absurdist at its very core. You also pretty much unilaterally attack Republicans to the exclusion of Democrats; one has to look far and wide to find a good well rounded attack on the dems in your speeches. Do you not think it the slightest bit ironic that you claim to be independent of these two parties, yet you hold back for the party that holds the majority of seats in both the House and Senate?

Your rudeness and condescending nature is not something only I see, Sean. Others see it as well. But, of course, they couldn't be right, could they? It's just a witch hunt; "the man" is keeping you down (which brings me to another point: you DON'T win elections with a victim mentality, which I see pretty much prevalent in your writing).

Please, feel free to explain how this is a Republican scandal, or grab a spoon and eat your little steamer.

do you even read what i wrote above? or do you just focus on the 10% you wanna nitpick? i already said the headline was gratuitous. i was in a mood, and it really didn't have anything to do with politics. sue me.

but you are completely consistant in your pattern of ignoring most everything and nitpicking and poo-pooing the rest.

i have no crusade there pal...i just do what i do. the crusade is from the right.

As time goes on, it'll just be worse

Bahahahaha...whatever don. go back and read some of my stuff from 2004 on here. i was a lot more "liberal" then in my writing. like most people, i went a little further to one side than i normally am on the whole between 9/11 and 2004.

but compare that to the increased balance on my site, esp since the 06 election...exactly as i said would happen both before and after the election. i made no bones that my support of the democrats was for a very few select reasons, which i'm to going to get into all over again. after the election, i was putting some rough drafts on here in regards to some music writing i am doing, but you felt compelled to turn it into a political debate and got extremely rude and were ...well...just being a big ol ass. that was the only time i ever gave you a "time out" remember? you've had your own brand of creepiness around here. but i try to see past such transgressions and errors in judgement. but, since then, i keep those articles either private or offline as it's not really fun for me to get into that type of "knock down, drag out" fight about something i truly do love in a way that this political crap doesn't even compare.

you can go on with whatever ya want here sparky, but if you really look within yourself, you know that i am much more fair than 99% of the bloggers on here or anywhere. that i can "take" a rough argument as good as anyone, and can dish it out as good as anyone. and that unlike most, have no qualms about standing up for others, evn those i may not agree with. like you, like others from the right, and in this case, i guess col gene.

cmon, don,,,you can do better than just talk out yer ass here.

no, i don't . you try to pin that on me, but it's not true. i do believe that we have a reponsibility to cover every child. i have yet to see a plan that can insure everyone from the private sector. i keep challenging people to show me one, or show me things on other issues...but you just see what you want, call me a democrat or a liberal and attack.

i think helth care is a complex issue and have never endorsed any specific plan. your accusation is false sir.

which brings me to my point. which is you can't even keep your story consistant in the same comment. how can i be arrogant and "kingly" and at the same time "have a victim mentality." sorry gid, no matter how many coats you put on that primer, it's still not true. and when the same lil group of people attack me, i hardly see that as "others" but just a lil mob of cronies. big whoop.

i'm just the target of your personal emotions, which have gotten the best of you...how sad

I KNOW what I read, Sean. As did OTHERS.

Like I said, it has nothing to do with how Liberal you are, just the insane need. There are a lot of Liberal bloggers who have something valid to say. Then there are bloggers that just reiterate everything that KO said last night and do junk like this because they feel such a need to dig at Republicans that they regurgitate a seven year old story that had nothing whatsoever to do with politics.

And it isn't just the title. You reiterate the party emphasis more than once here, even implying that Mark Foley did the same thing, when he didn't. Like I say, feel free to waste your time digging for criminal Republican dog catchers in small town America, too. It amounts to as much of a "Republican" scandal, and sheds light on the growing desperation of people who are finding it harder and harder to scapegoat Republicans now that their pet flavor of crook has the majority.