Mark Foley

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

>The dems would have us believe that only repubs were in a
>position to know of this reputation and do something about it.
>I don't believe that.

I don't think democrats and republicans are all that different. If a republican found out something of a sexual nature about a democrat, I have no doubt they'd be on the phone to the Washington Post/the NYT/their favorite blogger within minutes. (Indeed, that's happened!) Democrats are not much different.

What I'm getting at is: If all the pages knew to watch out for Foley, didn't the dems know for a long time also?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Apparently the less titillating emails were known about for a while and the parents didn't want them revealed. The IM's containing the more graphic language are a different story. The question is, who was able to record the IM's, who leked them, and was the leaking done against the parents wishes for political advantage?

No. That isn't the question at all.

Nice attempt to blame the messenger though.

Sure it is. Are you actually going to argue that if you didn't want your teenage sons life examined, schoolmates interviewed, and his education distracted by the press, that your desires are unimportant compared to the political mileage to be gained by furthur exploiting him in the press?

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Apparently the less titillating emails were known about for a while and the parents didn't want them revealed. The IM's containing the more graphic language are a different story. The question is, who was able to record the IM's, who leked them, and was the leaking done against the parents wishes for political advantage?

No. That isn't the question at all.

Nice attempt to blame the messenger though.

Sure it is. Are you actually going to argue that if you didn't want your teenage sons life examined, schoolmates interviewed, and his education distracted by the press, that your desires are unimportant compared to the political mileage to be gained by furthur exploiting him in the press?

I believe that the state can prosecute without the vicitim's testimony if they choose.

I think the wishes of the victim's family should not be all important. The desire to prevent further crimes should matter more.

If dems knew of this stuff for a long time, then they should be condemned for the delayed timing - putting other children at risk so that the news would hurt repubs in the election worse.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Apparently the less titillating emails were known about for a while and the parents didn't want them revealed. The IM's containing the more graphic language are a different story. The question is, who was able to record the IM's, who leked them, and was the leaking done against the parents wishes for political advantage?

No. That isn't the question at all.

Nice attempt to blame the messenger though.

Sure it is. Are you actually going to argue that if you didn't want your teenage sons life examined, schoolmates interviewed, and his education distracted by the press, that your desires are unimportant compared to the political mileage to be gained by furthur exploiting him in the press?

I believe that the state can prosecute without the vicitim's testimony if they choose.

I think the wishes of the victim's family should not be all important. The desire to prevent further crimes should matter more.

Perhaps, but it is very obvious this is being done for political advantage parents desires and what's best for the boy be damned.

[billvon 3,110]

>your desires are unimportant compared to the political mileage to be
>gained by furthur exploiting him in the press?

Coming soon from GravityMaster:

How sleazy democrats forced Duke Cunningham to accept 2.4 million dollars in bribes

How puppy-killing leftists kidnapped Bob Ney and forced him to go on Abramoff-sponsored gambling sprees

How family-hating left wingers killed Jon-Benet Ramsey

How evil dems (in collaboration with the Militant Gay Agenda(tm) ) caused Hurricane Katrina, then blamed Bush for it

Remember - no matter what happens, and who's at fault, there's a democrat you can blame for it somehow!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

The definition of pedophile isn't subjective. It's an attraction to pre-pubescent youths. What you or anyone else choose to think it means isn't relevant, the actual definition is.

Ephebophile would probably be more accurate. Both conditions are independent of sexual orientation.

I'm not defending the asshat (Foley), just objecting to the subjective wording of the post.

Point well made and I learn a new word.

Thanks!!

[billvon 3,110]

>what's best for the boy be damned.

What's best for boys like him is to stop sexual predators who might prey on them. That's pretty clear. I hear Mr. Foley passed some laws to help that happen; perhaps we will see them in action soon.

I think your defense of this guy is ill-advised even if you think you're doing it for a good reason (i.e. making democrats look bad.) You may disagree with the democrats on many issues; defending a pedophile isn't going to help with those disagreements.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>your desires are unimportant compared to the political mileage to be
>gained by furthur exploiting him in the press?

Coming soon from GravityMaster:

How sleazy democrats forced Duke Cunningham to accept 2.4 million dollars in bribes

How puppy-killing leftists kidnapped Bob Ney and forced him to go on Abramoff-sponsored gambling sprees

How family-hating left wingers killed Jon-Benet Ramsey

How evil dems (in collaboration with the Militant Gay Agenda(tm) ) caused Hurricane Katrina, then blamed Bush for it

Remember - no matter what happens, and who's at fault, there's a democrat you can blame for it somehow!

Obviously you aren't a parent. Get back to us when you are.

[billvon 3,110]

>Obviously you aren't a parent.

You figure I'll start to have more sympathy for pedophiles once I have kids? I doubt it. Do most people?

[rushmc 23]

Foley is a sleaze and hopefully will get what is coming to him. However, this thing on Foley is timed politically. Some of the IM's are said to be three years old. If someone had those for three years and held on to them until now is guilty of child endangerment if they held on to them for this long. (for political gotcha)

But my main point for my entering into this thread is to make the point of, how serious this crime is depends on which party you belong to!!.

Consider the following from Fox News.

Quote;

WASHINGTON — Former Rep. Mark Foley's sudden resignation last week after it was revealed that he had sexually explicit electronic conversations with teenage male congressional pages was not the first time that a congressman's conduct with pages was the center of Washington scandal.

In 1983, two congressmen, Reps. Gerry E. Studds and Daniel B. Crane, were caught having sexual relationships with pages — Studds with a male page and Crane with a female page. Studds, a Democrat, would go on to be re-elected in his Massachusetts district and served until his 1996 retirement, while Crane, a Republican, would lose his Illinois seat to the scandal.

Both men were censured the same day by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct — commonly known as the House ethics committee.
un-quote


Censure worked when the Dems were in power and one of there own was involved. Why is it different today?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>what's best for the boy be damned.

What's best for boys like him is to stop sexual predators who might prey on them. That's pretty clear. I hear Mr. Foley passed some laws to help that happen; perhaps we will see them in action soon.

I think your defense of this guy is ill-advised even if you think you're doing it for a good reason (i.e. making democrats look bad.) You may disagree with the democrats on many issues; defending a pedophile isn't going to help with those disagreements.

I'm not defending Foley and I don't appreciate your insinuation that I am. My issue is how this is being used to make political hay. Apparently you believe whats in the best interest of the boy means nothing.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Coming soon from GravityMaster:

In my opinion, that is very bad form to be predicting what another member will say, especially when those predicted statements are contemtible.

Bad form.

edit to add, from the rules: When discussing in this (or any) forum, a good rule of thumb is the one we learned in 2nd grade soccer--play the ball, not the player. If you find yourself directing things at a person rather than at what they say, chances are you are out of line.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[EricTheRed 0]

I suppose that a young girl raped by her uncle should just keep quiet as well since it could be damaging to his career?

It is illegal and quite disgusting to try to solicit sex with a minor.

*(unless of course you are a minor-then it's just naughty)*

Don't even try to turn Mark Foley into a victim. He isn't. You may be deluded, but you are getting lonely on this one.

illegible usually

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Obviously you aren't a parent.

You figure I'll start to have more sympathy for pedophiles once I have kids? I doubt it. Do most people?

No, I figure your outlook will change for the better and you will become protective of your children in the same way that this boy's parents did. Hopefully you won't allow your children to be exploited by the press for political gain...hopefully.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

You may be deluded

Nice PA. I'm not defending Foley. Please take your own advice.

If a young girl was raped, it would be handled by law enforcement and her name would not be dragged throught the press. Apparently you think that's OK?

[billvon 3,110]

>Why is it different today?

?? It's not. They both pled guilty to the crime. They both could have resigned if they so chose. They did not. One of them lost their bid for re-election; the other did not.

Despite Gravitymaster's vitriol, it was Foley who resigned - it was not democrats who 'pushed him out.' Indeed, if anything could have forced him to resign, it was the GOP's ethics rule (passed in 1993) that require indicted representatives to step down.

This scandal is purely GOP in its making. They declined to publically mention it in 2003 and 2005 when the issues first came up; they are now living with what one of their own has done.

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

Quote

>Obviously you aren't a parent.

You figure I'll start to have more sympathy for pedophiles once I have kids? I doubt it. Do most people?

No, I figure your outlook will change for the better and you will become protective of your children in the same way that this boy's parents did. Hopefully you won't allow your children to be exploited by the press for political gain...hopefully.

I am a parent. If I found out my kid was being sent IM's like this from a congressman (or anyone else for that matter) there would truely be hell to pay.

I really wouldn't give a damn what position the sender was, I would take any means necessary to assure he couldn't act out his perverse fantasy with any child.

IMO any parent that knew of this behavior and allow it to continue is neglectign their responsibility to that child.

illegible usually

[billvon 3,110]

>If a young girl was raped, it would be handled by law enforcement
> and her name would not be dragged throught the press. Apparently
> you think that's OK?

Hmm. So if a democratic senator committed the rape, you would support a cover-up so his name was not released, and his career not besmirched? I guess we have different standards on such things.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Why is it different today?

?? It's not. They both pled guilty to the crime. They both could have resigned if they so chose. They did not. One of them lost their bid for re-election; the other did not.

Despite Gravitymaster's vitriol, it was Foley who resigned - it was not democrats who 'pushed him out.' Indeed, if anything could have forced him to resign, it was the GOP's ethics rule (passed in 1993) that require indicted representatives to step down.

This scandal is purely GOP in its making. They declined to publically mention it in 2003 and 2005 when the issues first came up; they are now living with what one of their own has done.

Despite my vitiol??? You are the one who thinks it's OK to dragged innocent children and their reputations thru the press. Has it occurred to you this boy may be a struggling with his sexuality and his parents don't want his IM's made public? But hey, if it gets a Dem elected, who cares? I'd call that kind of justification vitriol.

[billvon 3,110]

>You are the one who thinks it's OK to dragged innocent
>children and their reputations thru the press. '

You've said this about a dozen times. Whose name has been dragged through the press?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>If a young girl was raped, it would be handled by law enforcement
> and her name would not be dragged throught the press. Apparently
> you think that's OK?

Hmm. So if a democratic senator committed the rape, you would support a cover-up so his name was not released, and his career not besmirched? I guess we have different standards on such things.

Apparently we do. I'd admonish Repubs. for using it for political gain by exploiting a young man. Much the same way I said it was wrong to bash Patrick Kennedy for his DWI. Apparently, your "no holds barred and consequences be damned if it gets one more House seat" mentality are out of alignment with mine.

[EricTheRed 0]

It can (and has to this point to my knowledge) be done without the minor being named.

Are you the one that thinks it's ok to jack off while IM'ing a 16YO?

illegible usually

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

This scandal is purely GOP in its making. They declined to publically mention it in 2003 and 2005 when the issues first came up; they are now living with what one of their own has done.

Not so fast, the dems may have known a lot also, and chosen to not publically mention it.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 3,110]

>I'd admonish Repubs. for using it for political gain by exploiting a young man.

You would really protect the identity of a rapist? Wow. I think such people give up their right to privacy (and public office) when they do such things.

I don't really think you'd do that. I think you've argued yourself into a corner; perhaps it's time to stop digging?

>Apparently, your "no holds barred and consequences be damned if it
>gets one more House seat" mentality are out of alignment with mine.

More like "no holds barred if someone goes after my kids." I don't really care who takes over his seat as long as he has better judgement than Foley (and, of course, is not a criminal.) I'm suprised you have a different take on it.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

>your desires are unimportant compared to the political mileage to be
>gained by furthur exploiting him in the press?

Coming soon from GravityMaster:

How sleazy democrats forced Duke Cunningham to accept 2.4 million dollars in bribes

How puppy-killing leftists kidnapped Bob Ney and forced him to go on Abramoff-sponsored gambling sprees

How family-hating left wingers killed Jon-Benet Ramsey

How evil dems (in collaboration with the Militant Gay Agenda(tm) ) caused Hurricane Katrina, then blamed Bush for it

Remember - no matter what happens, and who's at fault, there's a democrat you can blame for it somehow!

I blame Clinton.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.