Jump to content

Strange company for a president to keep


TheBlueVue

Recommended Posts





To be fair in this incident, wonder how many players thought they really knew Sandusky and had no idea what was going on. Even with it happening in their athletic facilities. Or we could simply look at them all and say it's all good as long as you got that full ride to Penn State to every player that committed there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Brits have similar problems with their politicians and celebrities. This administration has allowed a lot of strange characters around obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Brits have similar problems with their politicians and celebrities. This administration has allowed a lot of strange characters around obama.

They're been investigating it very seriously since Jimmy Savile died and everything he'd done has come to light. Operation Yewtree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Often the hard core conservatives ( religious ) have associated being gay with being a pedophile.

The Left reply that such charges are nothing but blatant homophobia,

I honestly don't know if gay men , as a %, are more or less likely to engage in sexual child abuse than straight men. Not real sure I want to know.

But this case does strike at the heart of that battle, If true, it would be a huge feather in the cap of those who think gays just want to pervert young boys and recruit them into being gay. Or I suppose that's the claim.

He either did it , or he didn't. But unfortunately, because of his status, we may never know the truth. There's a chance , if he did it, it'll be dismissed, and he'll claim it was all a set up. Such things have happened before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tex4Auburn........do you honestly think Obama didn't know? What difference does it make who else knew?

I don't have a clue if he knew or not honestly. Just like I don't have a clue if every football player at Penn State that played under Sandusky knew what was going on. Maybe he did and damn the consequences, just like maybe every single player at Penn State knew what Sandusky was doing and damn the consequences.

I guess maybe I should become more judgmental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If more folks had been judgmental, maybe Sandusky wouldn't have gotten away with his crimes for so long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh wait, if you have enough money and are willing to commit it to the progressive agenda, you can be friends with the President, even fly in AF-1 with him.

Probably true for most liberal/progressive Presidents. But one can just as easily say: "Oh wait, if you have enough money and are willing to commit it to the conservative agenda, you can be friends with the President, even fly in AF-1 with him." for pretty much every conservative President. That's just the way politics works in this country.

Throughout history, politicians have associated with persons of questionable character. At his height as a well-respected coach for Penn State, I imagine Sandusky associated with a number of powerful politicians and his company was probably sought out by many. Richard Nixon gave Elvis Presley an honorary Bureau of Narcotics & Dangerous Drugs badge. Would he have done so if he knew at the time that Elvis would be revealed as a chronic prescription drug abuser/addict? I imagine quite a few politicians--including Presidents-- have been photographed with Michael Jackson or hosted him at the White House...before his child abuse allegations, and the revelation of his drug use after his death. The Los Angeles chapter of the NCAA gave Donald Sterling a lifetime achievement award before his racist remarks to his girlfriend became public. I have neither the time for nor interest in researching other examples, but I'm sure they are numerous.

My point being: There is no reason to single out Obama for his association with Terry Page before these allegations were revealed. There is no reason to assume or suggest that Obama knew of or condoned any illegal actions on the part of Terry Page.

Regarding Terry Page: The charges should certainly be investigated, and if found guilty, he should certainly face the most stringent consequences. But until such time, he is innocent until proven guilty. And at least one reporter raises serious questions about the source of the allegations: http://americablog.c...loy-lawson.html

As for any correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia: I know of no scientific study that demonstrates such a link. Is homosexual pedophilia any more common than heterosexual pedophilia? Are there any valid statistics suggesting that pedophiles make up a larger percentage of the gay population than the percentage of pedophiles in the heterosexual population? For that matter, one almost never hears (I can't recall a single incident, myself) of lesbian pedophilia, but if a heterosexual female teacher seduces a teenage boy it makes sensationalist headlines every time. Should we ban heterosexual females from the teaching ranks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If more folks had been judgmental, maybe Sandusky wouldn't have gotten away with his crimes for so long.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "judgmental" and will defer to your intention/meaning.

But I'd prefer to say "If more people who had clear knowledge of Sandusky's acts (e.g. Joe Paterno, PSU officials, etc.) had acted on that knowledge in the proper way, perhaps he wouldn't have gotten away with his crimes for so long". I can't condone judgment in the lack of verified evidence, or based on hearsay alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But one can just as easily say: "Oh wait, if you have enough money and are willing to commit it to the conservative agenda, you can be friends with the President, even fly in AF-1 with him." for pretty much every conservative President. That's just the way politics works in this country.

I'll concede that point, no problem. Now,if you'll tell me who the last conservative president was who allowed a gay pedophile to be flying around in AF-1 with him, we'll be straight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But one can just as easily say: "Oh wait, if you have enough money and are willing to commit it to the conservative agenda, you can be friends with the President, even fly in AF-1 with him." for pretty much every conservative President. That's just the way politics works in this country.

I'll concede that point, no problem. Now,if you'll tell me who the last conservative president was who allowed a gay pedophile to be flying around in AF-1 with him, we'll be straight.

I don't have access to Air Force One flight records or passenger lists, but I do know the following served in Washington under a Republican President so it's reasonable to assume they spent time with the President (although I don't think it is reasonable to blame or condemn that President for the association):

http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

Larry Craig, Senator (R-ID), pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct following his arrest in a Minneapolis airport men's room in June 2007, on a charge of lewd conduct. Senator Craig had previously stated that "people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy—a naughty boy."

Mark Foley, Representative (R-FL), resigned his House seat when accused of sending sexually explicit e-mails to underage male congressional pages. (2006)

Brian J. Doyle, Deputy Press Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security was indicted for seducing what he thought was a 14-year-old girl on the Internet; she was actually a sheriff's deputy. On November 17, 2006, he was sentenced to 5 years in prison, 10 years of probation, and was registered as a sex offender.

...

Strom Thurmond, Senator (R-SC), noted segregationist, fathered a child, Essie Mae Washington-Williams, with a 15-year-old African American who was employed by the Thurmond family.

...

Jeff Gannon a.k.a. James Dale Guckert, a.k.a. "Bulldog", was admitted to White House press conferences as a journalist without proper vetting, and was allowed to ask such sympathetic questions that The Daily Show referred to him as "Chip Rightwingenstein of the Bush Agenda Gazette". Records show he was admitted to the White House numerous times even when there were no press conferences. He later admitted to being a $200-an-hour gay prostitute who had advertised himself on a series of websites with names such as hotmilitarystud.com. (2005)

The list goes on and on, and to be fair, includes plenty of Democrats caught in scandals as well, but you asked about conservatives.

Furthermore, there's no scandal in being gay (or shouldn't be). While I respect that everyone is entitled to their individual moral beliefs and to some, homosexuality is a sin. But it is not a crime and no reason to discriminate against anyone's political actions or associations.

Pedophilia, of course, is a crime and a psychological disorder, irregardless of the gender of the victim or the gender-orientation of the predator. But it is certainly not the unique domain of homosexuals.

Prove to me that Obama knew of acts of pedophilia by Terry Page and continued to associate with him (or worse yet, did not report him to authorities!) and I will share your outrage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Prove to me that Obama knew of acts of pedophilia by Terry Page and continued to associate with him (or worse yet, did not report him to authorities!) and I will share your outrage."

Clever argument but I doubt Obama cared. He's proven to be quite predictable when it comes to his enablers, especially his financial supporters. Nice you read outrage in my posts, it has to be a reflection of your own because I couldn't care less what Obama does with his pedophile friends in AF-1. Like I originally posted, I just thought it was strange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Prove to me that Obama knew of acts of pedophilia by Terry Page and continued to associate with him (or worse yet, did not report him to authorities!) and I will share your outrage."

Clever argument but I doubt Obama cared. He's proven to be quite predictable when it comes to his enablers, especially his financial supporters. Nice you read outrage in my posts, it has to be a reflection of your own because I couldn't care less what Obama does with his pedophile friends in AF-1. Like I originally posted, I just thought it was strange.

I admit, my use of the word 'outrage' was based on my inference or impression of your post(s), on this thread and others. I concede I cannot read your mind and if you found my inference offensive, I apologize.

Although I myself will be upset or outraged if we find out that Obama did indeed know about his [alleged] pedophilia and ignored or hid it! I suspect all decent people, including you and me, will be. I certainly consider protecting a predatory pedophile both an impeachable and imprisonable offense. But again, I see no reason to believe Obama did such, or even imagine that he did.

I am curious though: Can you read Obama's mind, or are your assumptions regarding whether he cares merely inference or impression on your part? But I acknowledge your right to have such impressions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If more folks had been judgmental, maybe Sandusky wouldn't have gotten away with his crimes for so long.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "judgmental" and will defer to your intention/meaning.

Pretty simple, actually. See something, say something. We know Paterno and TPTB knew damn well what was going on, but they turned a blind eye to it. Why ? Shock. Disgust. Dismay. Not to mention they thought they knew this man, and " outing " him would be a huge mark on the school's rep, so they just kept it under their hat. Happens far too often.

But I'd prefer to say "If more people who had clear knowledge of Sandusky's acts (e.g. Joe Paterno, PSU officials, etc.) had acted on that knowledge in the proper way, perhaps he wouldn't have gotten away with his crimes for so long". I can't condone judgment in the lack of verified evidence, or based on hearsay alone.

One need not have CLEAR knowledge to know something wrong is taking place. And that's my point. Had they taken the time to look closer, they'd have found more than they were ready to deal with, and so I think many just chose to ignore it. Not their problem. Let someone else deal w/ it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If more folks had been judgmental, maybe Sandusky wouldn't have gotten away with his crimes for so long.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "judgmental" and will defer to your intention/meaning.

Pretty simple, actually. See something, say something. We know Paterno and TPTB knew damn well what was going on, but they turned a blind eye to it. Why ? Shock. Disgust. Dismay. Not to mention they thought they knew this man, and " outing " him would be a huge mark on the school's rep, so they just kept it under their hat. Happens far too often.

But I'd prefer to say "If more people who had clear knowledge of Sandusky's acts (e.g. Joe Paterno, PSU officials, etc.) had acted on that knowledge in the proper way, perhaps he wouldn't have gotten away with his crimes for so long". I can't condone judgment in the lack of verified evidence, or based on hearsay alone.

One need not have CLEAR knowledge to know something wrong is taking place. And that's my point. Had they taken the time to look closer, they'd have found more than they were ready to deal with, and so I think many just chose to ignore it. Not their problem. Let someone else deal w/ it.

Fair enough. :thumbsup:

Without a doubt those with definite knowledge of what occurred in their own facilities (like Paterno and PSU officials) should have done more, anyone with reasonable suspicions should have reported those suspicions, and authorities should have followed up on any such reports.

When I think "judgmental" I think in terms of jumping to conclusions. I think of the days of the Inquisition and literal witch hunts where a neighbor's word (no matter how ignorant, bitter, dishonest or vengeful said neighbor might be) was enough to get someone imprisoned, tortured, or killed. I think of those eventually proven innocent of heinous acts, but permanently tarnished by the accusations. I think of stereotypes and people who make their decisions about others based on race, religion, politics, or ethnicity. I think of those who assume others must be stupid, wrong, ignorant or evil if they disagree the first person's beliefs. I think of those who hypocritically, to borrow from scripture, obsess about "the speck in another's eye while ignoring the plank in their own". (And honestly, I think of some who seem to automatically assume everything Obama does has evil roots because they disagree with some of his actions.)

But I understand that is just my feeling/reaction to the term "judgmental", which is why I deferred to the idea that you might mean something different. I'm certainly not accusing you of any of the aforementioned. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't attend this church anymore, but a few years ago we were at a local well-known church here in town and joined a Sunday School class. It was a tight knit group with some amazing people with wonderful hearts for God. After we left to attend somewhere else, the teacher moved into a full time position with the church and a guy from the class took over teaching and leading it. Last year, that new teacher he was arrested for child sexual assault or something similar. The kids were under the age of 12.

Not sure what that proves except that people can fool you. You don't always know what people are really like when you're not around. If keeping company with this guy is some sort of indictment on the President's character, then what does it say about the members of that class? About me?

Nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't attend this church anymore, but a few years ago we were at a local well-known church here in town and joined a Sunday School class. It was a tight knit group with some amazing people with wonderful hearts for God. After we left to attend somewhere else, the teacher moved into a full time position with the church and a guy from the class took over teaching and leading it. Last year, that new teacher he was arrested for child sexual assault or something similar. The kids were under the age of 12.

Not sure what that proves except that people can fool you. You don't always know what people are really like when you're not around. If keeping company with this guy is some sort of indictment on the President's character, then what does it say about the members of that class? About me?

Nothing.

I never made any kind of indictment other than it was strange company for him to keep. Just as your former Sunday school teacher was a strange fit for that job. The scenarios are quite a bit different between hobnobbing with political donors just because they donate a lot of money and a random guy in a Sunday school class who ends up having a problem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't attend this church anymore, but a few years ago we were at a local well-known church here in town and joined a Sunday School class. It was a tight knit group with some amazing people with wonderful hearts for God. After we left to attend somewhere else, the teacher moved into a full time position with the church and a guy from the class took over teaching and leading it. Last year, that new teacher he was arrested for child sexual assault or something similar. The kids were under the age of 12.

Not sure what that proves except that people can fool you. You don't always know what people are really like when you're not around. If keeping company with this guy is some sort of indictment on the President's character, then what does it say about the members of that class? About me?

Nothing.

I never made any kind of indictment other than it was strange company for him to keep. Just as your former Sunday school teacher was a strange fit for that job. The scenarios are quite a bit different between hobnobbing with political donors just because they donate a lot of money and a random guy in a Sunday school class who ends up having a problem

It's only strange company if you're insinuating that somehow he either 1) knew about this but didn't care because of $$$$ or 2) this was happening right under his nose and he wasn't discerning enough to pick up on it. In other words, it insinuates he's a bad judge of character.

If he just happened to spend some time with a donor that wanted to help him politically and this behavior surprised everyone, then it's not "strange company to keep" any more than people who were friends with this Sunday School teacher kept "strange company." You don't know what you don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't attend this church anymore, but a few years ago we were at a local well-known church here in town and joined a Sunday School class. It was a tight knit group with some amazing people with wonderful hearts for God. After we left to attend somewhere else, the teacher moved into a full time position with the church and a guy from the class took over teaching and leading it. Last year, that new teacher he was arrested for child sexual assault or something similar. The kids were under the age of 12.

Not sure what that proves except that people can fool you. You don't always know what people are really like when you're not around. If keeping company with this guy is some sort of indictment on the President's character, then what does it say about the members of that class? About me?

Nothing.

I never made any kind of indictment other than it was strange company for him to keep. Just as your former Sunday school teacher was a strange fit for that job. The scenarios are quite a bit different between hobnobbing with political donors just because they donate a lot of money and a random guy in a Sunday school class who ends up having a problem

It's only strange company if you're insinuating that somehow he either 1) knew about this but didn't care because of $$$$ or 2) this was happening right under his nose and he wasn't discerning enough to pick up on it. In other words, it insinuates he's a bad judge of character.

If he just happened to spend some time with a donor that wanted to help him politically and this behavior surprised everyone, then it's not "strange company to keep" any more than people who were friends with this Sunday School teacher kept "strange company." You don't know what you don't know.

Well, as is often the case we can agree to disagree...maybe. I dont think inviting him to ride along in AF-1 is just "happening to spend some time with a donor" but I could be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't attend this church anymore, but a few years ago we were at a local well-known church here in town and joined a Sunday School class. It was a tight knit group with some amazing people with wonderful hearts for God. After we left to attend somewhere else, the teacher moved into a full time position with the church and a guy from the class took over teaching and leading it. Last year, that new teacher he was arrested for child sexual assault or something similar. The kids were under the age of 12.

Not sure what that proves except that people can fool you. You don't always know what people are really like when you're not around. If keeping company with this guy is some sort of indictment on the President's character, then what does it say about the members of that class? About me?

Nothing.

I never made any kind of indictment other than it was strange company for him to keep. Just as your former Sunday school teacher was a strange fit for that job. The scenarios are quite a bit different between hobnobbing with political donors just because they donate a lot of money and a random guy in a Sunday school class who ends up having a problem

It's only strange company if you're insinuating that somehow he either 1) knew about this but didn't care because of $$$$ or 2) this was happening right under his nose and he wasn't discerning enough to pick up on it. In other words, it insinuates he's a bad judge of character.

If he just happened to spend some time with a donor that wanted to help him politically and this behavior surprised everyone, then it's not "strange company to keep" any more than people who were friends with this Sunday School teacher kept "strange company." You don't know what you don't know.

Well, as is often the case we can agree to disagree...maybe. I dont think inviting him to ride along in AF-1 is just "happening to spend some time with a donor" but I could be wrong.

It still doesn't matter unless you think he either knew about this guy's shady doings and ignored it for political gain (in the form of campaign donations) or he didn't know but should have discerned it somehow and distanced himself from the guy. If neither of those things are true, then it's no more "strange" than any other politician giving face time to a big donor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't attend this church anymore, but a few years ago we were at a local well-known church here in town and joined a Sunday School class. It was a tight knit group with some amazing people with wonderful hearts for God. After we left to attend somewhere else, the teacher moved into a full time position with the church and a guy from the class took over teaching and leading it. Last year, that new teacher he was arrested for child sexual assault or something similar. The kids were under the age of 12.

Not sure what that proves except that people can fool you. You don't always know what people are really like when you're not around. If keeping company with this guy is some sort of indictment on the President's character, then what does it say about the members of that class? About me?

Nothing.

I never made any kind of indictment other than it was strange company for him to keep. Just as your former Sunday school teacher was a strange fit for that job. The scenarios are quite a bit different between hobnobbing with political donors just because they donate a lot of money and a random guy in a Sunday school class who ends up having a problem

It's only strange company if you're insinuating that somehow he either 1) knew about this but didn't care because of $$$$ or 2) this was happening right under his nose and he wasn't discerning enough to pick up on it. In other words, it insinuates he's a bad judge of character.

If he just happened to spend some time with a donor that wanted to help him politically and this behavior surprised everyone, then it's not "strange company to keep" any more than people who were friends with this Sunday School teacher kept "strange company." You don't know what you don't know.

Well, as is often the case we can agree to disagree...maybe. I dont think inviting him to ride along in AF-1 is just "happening to spend some time with a donor" but I could be wrong.

It still doesn't matter unless you think he either knew about this guy's shady doings and ignored it for political gain (in the form of campaign donations) or he didn't know but should have discerned it somehow and distanced himself from the guy. If neither of those things are true, then it's no more "strange" than any other politician giving face time to a big donor.

Like I said, maybe we cant just agree to disagree :-\

One more thing, as for the idea Obama "just happened to spend time with a donor" i also find it quite strange the guy has been to the WH more times than the majority of republican Congressmen have and Im pretty sure none of them have flown with Obama on AF-1 either.

Its always been quite strange, to me, how Obama manages his priorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, maybe we cant just agree to disagree :-\

That's hard to do when you can't explain why it's strange or different in the first place.

One more thing, as for the idea Obama "just happened to spend time with a donor" i also find it quite strange the guy has been to the WH more times than the majority of republican Congressmen have and Im pretty sure none of them have flown with Obama on AF-1 either.

Shocker. "Politicians spend more time with rich donors. Details at 10!"

You still haven't explained why this is any 'stranger' than other rich donors getting more face time with politicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I think "judgmental" I think in terms of jumping to conclusions. I think of the days of the Inquisition and literal witch hunts where a neighbor's word (no matter how ignorant, bitter, dishonest or vengeful said neighbor might be) was enough to get someone imprisoned, tortured, or killed. I think of those eventually proven innocent of heinous acts, but permanently tarnished by the accusations. I think of stereotypes and people who make their decisions about others based on race, religion, politics, or ethnicity. I think of those who assume others must be stupid, wrong, ignorant or evil if they disagree the first person's beliefs. I think of those who hypocritically, to borrow from scripture, obsess about "the speck in another's eye while ignoring the plank in their own". (And honestly, I think of some who seem to automatically assume everything Obama does has evil roots because they disagree with some of his actions.)

But I understand that is just my feeling/reaction to the term "judgmental", which is why I deferred to the idea that you might mean something different. I'm certainly not accusing you of any of the aforementioned. ;)

I hate to say it, but 'judgmental' has been turned into a bad word by those directing ( or wishing to direct ) today's society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, maybe we cant just agree to disagree :-\

That's hard to do when you can't explain why it's strange or different in the first place.

One more thing, as for the idea Obama "just happened to spend time with a donor" i also find it quite strange the guy has been to the WH more times than the majority of republican Congressmen have and Im pretty sure none of them have flown with Obama on AF-1 either.

Shocker. "Politicians spend more time with rich donors. Details at 10!"

You still haven't explained why this is any 'stranger' than other rich donors getting more face time with politicians.

I didn't realize I owed you an explanation. Im sorry. i just find it strange and didn't realize I had to get an OK from you to have that opinion. if I couldn't explain it to your satisfaction. I think its strange as hell, you dont. I can handle that but it seems you're having a problem with it.

If Obama spent less time with big donors and more time actually trying to affect positive legislation, by interacting with the opposition party, we may actually see some movement on the gridlock. Im pretty sure that's not going to happen. Too many rich donors out there that Obama is more interested in selling out to than anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...