More Foley bad deeds or not?

[sundevil777 102]

Some guy that was a congressional page (he is remaining anonymous) is now saying that Foley had sex with him when he was 21.

I heard of this new story a couple times on the radio on different stations, then finally I heard a talk show that highlighted the fact that the guy was 21.

Why is this an example of a misdeed. He was no longer in the program, and was 21.

I hope the liberals keep making asses of themselves. Whether the conservatives will be effective at showing their ass-holeness is yet to be seen.

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

[Andy9o8 2]

Nobody really cares about what Foley did with people who were legally adults. It's what he did with juveniles. Prove that every person with whom Foley had these sexually-related communications was an adult when it happened, and the Newsmax crowd will have made its point. But there still are people who say that they were under 18 when it happened. Until/unless each of those charges is shown to be false, the Newsmax crowd is just trying to baffle us with bullshit.

P.S. So why did Foley resign if none of these boys were juveniles?

P.P.S. - Did you know Clinton got a blowjob? Wow. That changes everything.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Nobody really cares about what Foley did with people who were legally adults.

At least a couple of broadcast radio news stations here cared enough to make it their headline story. They just failed to mention the guy being 21.

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

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Nobody really cares about what Foley did with people who were legally adults.

At least a couple of broadcast radio news stations here cared enough to make it their headline story. They just failed to mention the guy being 21.

I bet they forgot to mention that the Sun rose in the east that day, too.

...

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

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Why is this an example of a misdeed. He was no longer in the program, and was 21.

It was reported that Foley first approached him when he was underage. Face it, Foley is a sick bastard and I hope they hang the creep.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Michele 1]

Quote

But there still are people who say that they were under 18 when it happened

Were they over the age of consent? That's the bit in question, imho...

And frankly, Foley resigned because it was better for his party overall, not because he is an alcoholic, or a pedophile, or gay. If that were the case, he'd've resigned a long time ago. He should've been gone a long time ago...

BTW, the point about the page being over 21 having been left out is a huge deal...and one which speaks to either a conscious intent to grab viewers and let them believe one thing, or a subconsious attempt to grab viewers and let them believe one thing, whether or not it's the truth.

It's a pretty important fact to have left out, when the only reason the pages being talked about is Foley's impropriety with them, and the debate about if they were old enough or not to have had him hit on them.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

But there still are people who say that they were under 18 when it happened

Were they over the age of consent? That's the bit in question, imho...

And frankly, Foley resigned because it was better for his party overall, not because he is an alcoholic, or a pedophile, or gay. If that were the case, he'd've resigned a long time ago. He should've been gone a long time ago...

BTW, the point about the page being over 21 having been left out is a huge deal...and one which speaks to either a conscious intent to grab viewers and let them believe one thing, or a subconsious attempt to grab viewers and let them believe one thing, whether or not it's the truth.

It's a pretty important fact to have left out, when the only reason the pages being talked about is Foley's impropriety with them, and the debate about if they were old enough or not to have had him hit on them.

Ciels-
Michele

Well, it seems to me that the party of "family values" and "taking personal responsibilty" is having a bit of a hard time with its own values right now, regardless of anyone's age. Pointing fingers at Democrats is hardly taking responsibility now, is it? Crowing that Studd was just as bad is hardly claiming family values as GOP's own special turf, is it?

The GOP talks the talk but is certainly not walking the walk.

...

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

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

I bet they forgot to mention that the Sun rose in the east that day, too.

Because it doesn't matter.

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

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

Why is this an example of a misdeed. He was no longer in the program, and was 21.

It was reported that Foley first approached him when he was underage. Face it, Foley is a sick bastard and I hope they hang the creep.

It was not mentioned in the radio reports what happened while he was underage. Using the term 'approached' is meaningless without more detail.

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

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

I bet they forgot to mention that the Sun rose in the east that day, too.

Because it doesn't matter.

In the context of "family values", neither does a few months one way or the other on the pages' ages.

...

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

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I bet they forgot to mention that the Sun rose in the east that day, too.

Because it doesn't matter.

In the context of "family values", neither does a few months one way or the other on the pages' ages.

Quite right!

For conservatives, it doesn't matter.

That is not true for liberals, well at least before Mark Foley. Now they are going to have to care at least a little bit more about future, similar cases within their own ranks.

The party of low expectations demonstrated exactly.

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

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I bet they forgot to mention that the Sun rose in the east that day, too.

Because it doesn't matter.

In the context of "family values", neither does a few months one way or the other on the pages' ages.

Quite right!

For conservatives, it doesn't matter.

THEN WHY ARE YOU MAKING SUCH A FUSS ABOUT IT?

Quote

That is not true for liberals, well at least before Mark Foley. Now they are going to have to care at least a little bit more about future, similar cases within their own ranks.

The party of low expectations demonstrated exactly.

I think they expect a lower budget deficit, that's for sure. Less dishonesty from the administration. Less stress on the environment too. Less emphasis on telling women what they should do with their bodies.

On the whole, less government of the kind we have right now would be a damn good thing.

...

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

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

I think they expect a lower budget deficit, that's for sure. Less dishonesty from the administration. Less stress on the environment too. Less emphasis on telling women what they should do with their bodies.

That sure is a lot of changing the subject. There are plenty of reasons to criticise republicans performance in office, but the big news story lately has been on this particular one.

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 3,120]

>The party of low expectations demonstrated exactly.

I'd be careful with the generalizations in light of recent events. For if democrats are the party of low expectations, republicans are provably the party of low results. One party is less supportive of "family values"; the other party actually tries to seduce underage kids.

Another alternative is to dump the generalizations and stop painting all democrats (and republicans) with the same brush. I know, it's not nearly as fun, but often results in a more informed opinion.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Well, it seems to me that the party of "family values" and "taking personal responsibilty" is having a bit of a hard time with its own values right now, regardless of anyone's age. Pointing fingers at Democrats is hardly taking responsibility now, is it? Crowing that Studd was just as bad is hardly claiming family values as GOP's own special turf, is it?

The GOP talks the talk but is certainly not walking the walk.

It obvious that YOU can't see the blatant hypocrisy between the Dem's treatment of Studds and their treatment of Foley.

Some, however, CAN see the difference and note the hypocrisy of the Dem's double standard. Evidently, if Foley had buggered the page while he was in the program, instead of sending "over friendly" emails and some racy IM's *AFTER* he was out of the program all would have been forgiven...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Well, it seems to me that the party of "family values" and "taking personal responsibilty" is having a bit of a hard time with its own values right now, regardless of anyone's age. Pointing fingers at Democrats is hardly taking responsibility now, is it? Crowing that Studd was just as bad is hardly claiming family values as GOP's own special turf, is it?

The GOP talks the talk but is certainly not walking the walk.

It obvious that YOU can't see the blatant hypocrisy between the Dem's treatment of Studds and their treatment of Foley.

Apparently, you can't see the blatant hypocrisy of the chairman of the House Caucus of Missing and Exploited Children trolling underage pages on the Internet. No matter how you spin it, Studds did not set himself up as an arbiter of virtue the way Foley did.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well, it seems to me that the party of "family values" and "taking personal responsibilty" is having a bit of a hard time with its own values right now, regardless of anyone's age. Pointing fingers at Democrats is hardly taking responsibility now, is it? Crowing that Studd was just as bad is hardly claiming family values as GOP's own special turf, is it?

The GOP talks the talk but is certainly not walking the walk.

It obvious that YOU can't see the blatant hypocrisy between the Dem's treatment of Studds and their treatment of Foley.

Apparently, you can't see the blatant hypocrisy of the chairman of the House Caucus of Missing and Exploited Children trolling underage pages on the Internet. No matter how you spin it, Studds did not set himself up as an arbiter of virtue the way Foley did.

Better go check some other sources (someplace OTHER than DU, that is) - Foley didn't contact these people until they were OUT of the page program and of consenting age... UNLIKE Studds, who not only had sex with with a page active in the program, but told all and sundry it was none of their business and was applauded for it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Well, it seems to me that the party of "family values" and "taking personal responsibilty" is having a bit of a hard time with its own values right now

You're quite the one trick pony, aren't you? Seems like about half of your posts in the "Speakers Corner" mention family values and taking personal responsibility.

Using hot button phrases over and over and over again, isn't the same as making relevant points.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Well, it seems to me that the party of "family values" and "taking personal responsibilty" is having a bit of a hard time with its own values right now

You're quite the one trick pony, aren't you? Seems like about half of your posts in the "Speakers Corner" mention family values and taking personal responsibility.

Using hot button phrases over and over and over again, isn't the same as making relevant points.

It's called the Al Franken debate strategy. Repeating the same thing over and over again and people become as interested it what one has to say as they are in the Al Franken Show.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well, it seems to me that the party of "family values" and "taking personal responsibilty" is having a bit of a hard time with its own values right now

You're quite the one trick pony, aren't you? Seems like about half of your posts in the "Speakers Corner" mention family values and taking personal responsibility.

Using hot button phrases over and over and over again, isn't the same as making relevant points.

It's called the Al Franken debate strategy. Repeating the same thing over and over again and people become as interested it what one has to say as they are in the Al Franken Show.

You mean like "we're the party of morality", "the American people are safer", "flip flop", "cut and run", "terrrrists, Saddam, terrrrists, Iraq, 9/11", and "republicans are stronger on National defense"?

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Well, it seems to me that the party of "family values" and "taking personal responsibilty" is having a bit of a hard time with its own values right now

You're quite the one trick pony, aren't you? Seems like about half of your posts in the "Speakers Corner" mention family values and taking personal responsibility.

Using hot button phrases over and over and over again, isn't the same as making relevant points.

They said that about Cato the Elder too. You should learn some history.

"Ceterum censeo: Carthago Delenda Est,"

...

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

[billvon 3,120]

>Repeating the same thing over and over again and people become
>as interested it what one has to say as they are in the Al Franken Show.

If, in six years, left wingers keep repeating "but Foley IM'ed a page/propositioned minors" at the same rate that right wingers repeat "but Clinton got a blowjob/lied under oath!" then you will have a point. Until then, I think it's pretty clear which party does the "repeat ad nauseum" thing better.

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well, it seems to me that the party of "family values" and "taking personal responsibilty" is having a bit of a hard time with its own values right now, regardless of anyone's age. Pointing fingers at Democrats is hardly taking responsibility now, is it? Crowing that Studd was just as bad is hardly claiming family values as GOP's own special turf, is it?

The GOP talks the talk but is certainly not walking the walk.

It obvious that YOU can't see the blatant hypocrisy between the Dem's treatment of Studds and their treatment of Foley.

Apparently, you can't see the blatant hypocrisy of the chairman of the House Caucus of Missing and Exploited Children trolling underage pages on the Internet. No matter how you spin it, Studds did not set himself up as an arbiter of virtue the way Foley did.

Better go check some other sources (someplace OTHER than DU, that is) - Foley didn't contact these people until they were OUT of the page program and of consenting age...

No, he simply didn't hook up with them till then. He definitely harassed them while they were in the program, which is why Hastert is in such hot water.

Quote

UNLIKE Studds, who not only had sex with with a page active in the program, but told all and sundry it was none of their business and was applauded for it.

Again, you're missing the point. Studds was never the Annointed Protector of Youth that Foley set himself up to be. You just can't top that on the hypocrisy meter.

[mnealtx 0]

What I'm hearing is "Studds was different...that doesn't count".

I'll try to hit the parallels again:

Studds: Seduced an active page - I don't know if the page was over the age of consent at the time, but may have been.

Foley: Sent "over friendly" emails to a FORMER page (over the age of consent) and more explicit IM's to another FORMER page (also over age of consent).

Both abuses of power...but Studds was applauded and exonerated by the Dems, where Foley is being crucified - THAT is hypocricy.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[NCclimber 0]

And let's not overlook that once Foley was exposed, he resigned immediately. In contrast, Studds symbolically told the House (and the US Constitution) to fuck off!

The funny thing about this Foley drama is despite all the righteous indignation by those on the left, I've yet to hear whether or not Foley has broken a single law.

On the other hand, we have the low profile dramas of William Jefferson and Alan Mollohan.