Congress has lost its mind...

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

One of Barney Franks greatest legacies will be his relationship to a guy who ran a prostitution ring out of his house.

Wikipedia - whether you chose to believe this source or not

In 1985 Frank was still closeted. That year he hired Steve Gobie for sex,
a male prostitute, and they became friends more than sexual partners.[24]
Frank housed Gobie and hired him with personal funds as an aide, housekeeper and driver
and paid for his attorney and court-ordered psychiatrist.[24]
In 1987 Frank kicked Gobie out after he was advised by his landlord that Gobie
kept escorting despite the support and was doing so in the residence.[24][25]

Later that year Gobie's friends convinced him he had a gay male version of Mayflower Madam,
a TV movie they had been watching.[24] In 1989 Gobie tried to initiate a bidding war
for the story between WUSA-TV (Channel 9), the Washington Times, and The Washington Post.[24]
He then gave the story to The Washington Times for nothing, in hopes of getting a book contract.[25]

Amid calls for an investigation Frank asked the House Ethics Committee
to investigate his relationship "in order to insure that the public record is clear."[26]
The Committee found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved
in the alleged illegal activity and dismissed all of Gobie's more scandalous claims;
they recommended a reprimand for Frank using his congressional office
to fix 33 of Gobie's parking tickets and for misstatements of fact in a memorandum
relating to Gobie's criminal probation record.[27]
The House voted 408–18 to reprimand Frank.[28][29]

The attempts to censure and expel Frank were led by Republican Larry Craig,
whom Frank later criticized for hypocrisy[30] after Craig's own arrest in 2007
for lewd conduct while soliciting gay sex in an airport bathroom.[31][32][33]

Frank won re-election that year with 66 percent of the vote,
and has won by larger margins until the 2010 Mid-term elections
when Frank only won by eleven points.[34]

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

- whether you chose to believe this source or not

I do not. Wiki should not be trusted but for only the basic and benign facts that are completely accepted by all. Frank was a sexual predator and the Dems gave him a pass. Good ridden's to the MoFo.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I do not. Wiki should not be trusted but for only the basic and benign facts that are completely accepted by all. Frank was a sexual predator and the Dems gave him a pass. Good ridden's to the MoFo.

And that's a perfectly good justification for why your character assassination isn't listed in Wikipedia. Such a statement is not basic, not benign, and not accepted by all. You make his point.

I wonder if you have other sources to back up your claim. Do you?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

And that's a perfectly good justification for why your character assassination isn't listed in Wikipedia. Such a statement is not basic, not benign, and not accepted by all. You make his point.

I wonder if you have other sources to back up your claim. Do you?

People like that fool have legions of followers who manipulate Wiki entries for the very purpose of ensuring the message it delivers. Ask UT about his experience with it. When it comes to controversial statements or one that may cast a high profile person, no less a sitting Congressman, I don't think anything you put up that would be slightly negative would last but a few hours.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I do not. Wiki should not be trusted but for only the basic and benign facts that are completely accepted by all. Frank was a sexual predator and the Dems gave him a pass. Good ridden's to the MoFo.

From Wikipedia's 'What Wikipedia is Not' page:

Scandal mongering, something "heard through the grapevine" or gossip. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.

It seems a little unfair to say that wikipedia 'cannot be trusted' for things that aren't 'basic benign facts that are completely accepted by all' when that is its stated remit. Perhaps better to say that Wikipedia is not there to provide anything but the basic facts as accepted by all, and cannot speak to matters beyond that.