Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
PO Box 86208, Portland, OR 97286
PO Box 86208, Portland, OR 97286
It's too bad. I didn't vote for him, but less than a month into the job, to blow it all up, is pretty sad.
I know some people who work in his office and naturally have a lot of faith and investment in "their guy." They could be suddenly looking for a whole new career a month after he started the top job that they all worked so hard to help him win. Sad.
Good luck, Sam. That was a pretty big fucking lie though.
Blaming Willamette Week is just blaming the messenger. The problem was the lying (not just lying but getting others involved and coaching a young man to lie as well).
Bitch about reporters all you want, but at the end of the day no one is responsible for that behavior other than Adams.
I have no doubt that it is. People get caught up in their subcultures here and forget they live in the middle of a standard American city. It's filled with middle-class, middle-age households. (Households which have 17 and 18 year-old children for instance.)
This blog is in no way representative of the majority of Portland, Oregon. (Which is why I find it so hilarious and infuriating to read.)
Let's not be incendiary.
Folks, the all important LETTER OF THE LAW aside, 18 year olds are not actually adults. They're kids. They have sex, true - as do even younger kids. But their still kids.
When I was 18 years old, I thought I had it all figured out just like everyone does at that age, but I didn't know my head from my ass.
These are the facts: The 42-year-old Adams met this kid when he was 17, hung around, "mentored" him, showed up at his 18th birthday party (eeeeew), and then had him over for a sex weekend a couple of weeks later.
Then he lied repeatedly about it, and he and his political consultants coached the kid on how to lie about it.
I'm glad you guys are all very enlightened Portland types, proud of your new gay mayor. But the behavior I just described is *creepy* and unethical. Gay or straight. It's fucking creepy.
And we can judge political leaders on their character. There is no legal standard that must be met. We can just decide that we don't want the guy to be leading us anymore because he's a slimeball.
You might want to check, but I think you still don't know your head from your ass. 18 year-olds play pro ball, lead symphonies, and kill for their country. Let's not treat them all like they are in diapers.
In your fantasy land of, "the all important LETTER OF THE LAW aside", what prevents me from punching you in the dick?
The rest of your rants are all stupid, like you.
I'm going ad hominem against you, because real logic doesn't seem to work with you. You just willfully ignore facts and make up things to suit yourself.
What facts am I ignoring and what am I making up?
You wouldn't punch me the dick, because A) men don't hit other men in the dick, and B) you're a pussy.
WTF? Knob.
Scroll...
No proof, just a suspicion.
I'm 'fraid it's true, SPK. You'll understand when you are wizened as I.
"You wouldn't punch me the dick, because A) men don't hit other men in the dick"
"What facts am I ignoring and what am I making up?"
A)JCVD punches a man in the dick in the movie Bloodsport.
B)"Punch in the dick" is a well known phrase that doesn't actually constitute actual violence
C)You are wrong.
So onto other things that you're wrong about. Sam Adams has done nothing impeachable. We can not institute a recall vote for a minimum of 6 months. You are ignoring legal defintions in favor of definitions that you've made up.
You know what you're over. Until you get actual real world facts, you've lost any semblence of credibility.
Anyway, I know there can't be a recall for 6 months, but it will take that long to organize anyway, so we should start talking about it now.
I have to repeat that "legal definitions" aren't necessarily the definitions that matter here. The public can vote for a person, or to recall a person, for all kinds of issues that don't have to do with illegal behavior.
Voters can recall him because we've seen enough to be concerned about his character. It doesn't matter if he actually broke a law or not.
I'll just give it another go (all together now):
It doesn't matter if he broke the law. A violation of public trust, and demonstration of a flawed character is enough to recall him.
And no, I'm not saying that what matters is "my" personal "law". I'm saying let's have a vote to recall him if he doesn't resign. We'll see if the city agrees with me or with you guys.
(Spoiler alert: they'll agree with me.)
Oh wait. I don't live in one.
And lies to the media.
And don't forget that the mayor's sex life is being investigated for possible child sex abuse.
If someone asked him to shoot someone, and he did it I'm fairly certain the jury wouldn't let him off on a "Well, someone asked me to shoot that person" plea.
I watch a lot of Law and Order so I know I'm right about this.
This is a fact.
A. I think it's shitty when the Merc reporters / readers post under assumed names. It's your opinion - why are you so afraid to stand up for it?
2. "Public Trust" - ??? - It's none of my business who he fucks and who he doesn't - and its none of yours either. Show me where in the Oregon Constitution where it defines the notion of "Public Trust" then show me where it tells you how you know when you've violated it. He may have violated YOUR trust, but that's a totally different issue.
3. It's OK to admit you're wrong. Your arguments aren't holding up - just read this thread for confirmation of that fact. It's OK - you fucked up - you're completely full of shit right now. It's OK... we forgive you, just admit it. Clinging to these bullshit arguments make you look stupid and you're not - you're just misguided
4. You look like these people right now, just FYI:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD97OVJ4PNw
Kisses,
Dane Hesseldahl
I'm not even gonna give you a hard time... Given what I can glean about you from your comments - I'm just proud of you for (sort-of) putting the words together so that they (almost) mean something!
Good job buddy!
A. Unlike the motley collection of bike messengers, 14-year-old hipsters, and drooling perverts who post on Blogtown, I have an adult job and professional life, and therefore I don't post under my real name. I don't give a crap if you know my name. I give a crap if google finds my posts.
2. "Public Trust" This one is really not penetrating the thick skulls around here. The "public trust" issue isn't the sex, its the LYING, genius. See if you can follow this: When people lie, it is hard to trust them. And getting other people to lie - even worse for a public figure.
3. A little education in rhetoric: "You're arguments aren't holding up" isn't an actual argument. It doesn't identify any specific statement that I've made, nor does it prove how that statement was wrong. It's just lazy argumentation on your part.
4. I don't follow bullshit links from other posters. I'm not that interested in what you think is a quality "burn".
Sincerely,
Blabby
because our opinions are correct.
Blabby's lack of credibility is mainly due to his lack of using standards that are defined somewhere other than my himself.
He constantly says, "XYZ means ABC because I say so."
When someone responds with "No, actually ORS 123.456 says that XYZ means CBA."
Blabby says, "No, you're wrong and stupid because I say so."
Thus proving Blabby's lack of credibilty. Ta-Da!
"somewhere other than by himself."
instead of
"somewhere other than my himself."
Hi! How's it going?
Man, your job must SUCK!
I too have a professional job and a reputation to uphold. I guess I'm just not worried how my clients might react when they read what I've written, and if it's a problem - then that's most likely someone I wouldn't have wanted to work with anyway.
Just a difference in lifestyle is all.
Have fun with your gossip and your hate mongering!
Oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh!!!
You guys think I'm homophobic! Is that what this is about? Wow. I invite anyone to read through anything I've posted in the last two days and find something that's homophobic.
Just like what Sam Adams does in his own home, in his own time in none of yours.
Is what Adams did illegal?
If yes, than Adams did something wrong and should be brought up on charges. We all agree we don't want a politician who breaks the law.
If no, than we all need to shut the fuck up. There is no way to tell the press "it's none of your fucking business" without implying guilt. This shit could have affected his chance for election and, given that it isn't any of our business in the first place, he lied.
If I was in his position, I'd do the same thing.
He wasn't under oath. He wasn't legally compelled to tell the truth in this situation. It's a tragedy we put him in a situation where he needed to lie to protect the privacy we afford everyone else in Portland. Just because he's in politics, doesn't give us the right to pry into his personal life. We pry, but should we?
If you asked your employee if they had sex with another consenting adult, and they lied to protect their privacy, do we really have grounds to fire them, or is none of our goddamned business?
This is what Blabby wants: to fire an employee for trying to protect his privacy.
Five hundred smackers.
You could wait until you prove me wrong.
It's quite a stretch to say that any of this casts little more than a faint shadow upon a career of political substance. Shall Mayor Adams be perversely vindicated in an apparent anticipation of torches and pitchforks raised against his supposedly corrupting influence as a gay man? The hype is mere stigma.
Holding politicians accountable is not a matter of dragging representatives off pedestals; nay, it is of calling them to the duty of consistently doing our bidding to the best of their abilities. The election is over; the work of governance is what matters, especially in these tricky times.
Scapegoating is the transparent leverage of political distraction. There's no place in government for the moral determinism of churches or weak journalism.
If you believe the problem was that he lied about it, then you need to examine the media, not Adams. We have no right to pry into his personal life. If I were him, I'd do the same thing, because the phrase "that's none of your damn business" implies guilt. Not answering the question implies guilt. There is no other response besides the one he gave that wouldn't also imply guilt.
This is an important point, D, so you should read carefully. Just because he's a politician, doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to privacy. Just because he's politician, doesn't mean he should be under any more scrutiny for his choices in sexual partners than you or I. You have the right to judge him, but the question is, are you justified in doing so?
It's that simple, D. At this point in time, you have no more information than I do about the situation. So, until more comes up, the internet would appreciate it if you'd shut your hole.
Then why did you just call me a hate monger?
I'm the only one applying any sort of logic to this situation!
Unfortunately, it just doesn't work out that way. Politicians are judged by voters from every angle, from what tie their wearing to how they conduct their personal lives. If you want to be Mayor, you have to accept it. It may not be right, but tough.
Sam Adams is just a guy who goes to work in the morning and comes home at night - the fact that he's mayor doesn't make his personal life any of my business, anymore than what you do for a living makes what happens in your bedroom at night a matter of public record.
Just because a reporter CAN ask a question - doesn't mean they SHOULD - but because people like D & Blabby exist in the world - bullshit like is somehow deemed "news" and the rest of us have to deal with their impossibly small minds.
" ... If you want to be Mayor, you have to accept it. It may not be right, but tough."
The "logic" that you are using is tragically flawed. What you're saying is that morality can be applied on a case-by-case basis and that it's OK to hold Mayor Adams accountable but not anyone else.
Using your "logic" I can make a case against recycling, puppies and sunshine-y days.
Here's the bottom line: The fact that something makes you uncomfortable doesn't make it OK for you to ruin other people's lives over it. Morality is subjective - and the simple fact that you don't agree with me doesn't make me wrong.
I've yet to see you make single concrete argument. First it was about the "LETTER OF THE LAW" - the we told you it wasn't illegal. Next it was about the "PUBLIC TRUST" - but now you're admitting that it's unfair for public officials to undergo this kind of scrutiny...
What's next?
Thanks. That about sums it up. Thread done.
This isn't even about a "higher standard." I would be appalled by these actions by anyone.