Republicans trying to touch little boys

[Autocratic]

Sweet, ironic political justice.

We're in the "ridiculous excuse" phase.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/03/foley.scandal/index.html

[zauggru]

I don't think mentioning the political party will help at all with the situation. Foley is a sick pervert. Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, Independents, etc. all have perverts. Sorry Auto, but you can't label all Republicans as perverts.

[Chip]

Auto, that is a pretty stupid thread name. By that same token I can state that ALL democrats want to release pedophiles and leave you no way of find out if one lives next to you. That Liberals support MAMBLA.
That is just total BS.

In 1983, then-Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was caught in a similar situation. In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page -- something Foley hasn't been charged with.

Did Studds express contrition? Resign? Quite the contrary. He rejected Congress' censure of him and continued to represent his district until his retirement in 1996.

In 1989, Rep. Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record), also of Massachusetts, admitted he'd lived with Steve Gobie, a male prostitute who ran a gay sex-for-hire ring out of Frank's apartment. Frank, it was later discovered, used his position to fix 33 parking tickets for Gobie.

What happened to Frank? The House voted 408-18 to reprimand him -- a slap on the wrist. Today he's an honored Democratic member of Congress, much in demand as a speaker and "conscience of the party."

In 2001, President Clinton, who had his own intern problem, commuted the prison sentence of Illinois Rep. Mel Reynolds, who had sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer and pressured her to lie about it. (Reynolds also was convicted of campaign spending violations.)

You get the idea. Democrats not only seem OK with the kind of behavior for which Foley is charged, but also they protect and excuse it. Only when it's a Republican do they proclaim themselves shocked -- shocked! -- when it comes to light.

We have a lot more questions about this whole affair. The timing of the revelations, as we noted, couldn't be more propitious for the Democrats. Turns out both the Democrats and several newspapers seem to have known about Foley's problem as far back as November, according to research by several enterprising blogs.

Why didn't they come forward then? Who dredged up these e-mails -- and why did they hold them until now? This reeks of political trickery.

We're glad Foley's gone. He betrayed Congress, his party and the trust of the 33 pages who serve in Congress, and their parents. He behaved immorally, and we won't be surprised at new revelations.

That said, if this scandal is the Democrats' answer to their problems at the polls, it's pretty pathetic. It shows a base contempt for the voters.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20061002...006102issues01

[BloodySloth]

I fail to see how someone being a child molester provides sweet political justice for anything. Maybe it's just me.

[Autocratic]

Chip, I don't see how the title implies that all Republicans are responsible, but either way it's clearly tongue in cheek.

And Bloody, if you were a Democrat you could see the astounding irony in a GOP gay sex scandal being covered up by the leadership. Years of moral crusading hasn't done anything to change the ways of Congressmen, it seems.

[BloodySloth]

I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying. You're celebrating the fact that someone is molesting children, because it makes your party look better.

Even then, as Chip has pointed out, democrats aren't exactly clean souls either. At the end of the day, all these people are still politicians, and if they get to any height of power, they're probably dirty politicians.

[T.N.D.]

****

[OmegaBob]

All I know is that at the end of the day, BOTH Dem and Rep are pretty much the same.

The second thing I know: any video/PC gamer that votes for Hilary or Liberman is a traitor to free speech.

[T.N.D.]

Chip, I don't see how the title implies that all Republicans are responsible, but either way it's clearly tongue in cheek.
It's not the title, it's this line...
Sweet, ironic political justice

And no, it wasn't clearly tongue in cheek, if it was you would have made it clear.
You can't say anything you want, and say it's "tongue in cheek" just so you won't garner any heat because of what you say.
If I had said "All liberal democrats injoy aborting babies", without any hint that it was "clearly tongue in cheek" you would rightly take me to task, and if I said later that it was "clearly tongue in cheek", it wouldn't really hold water.

[Autocratic]

I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying. You're celebrating the fact that someone is molesting children, because it makes your party look better.

Even then, as Chip has pointed out, democrats aren't exactly clean souls either. At the end of the day, all these people are still politicians, and if they get to any height of power, they're probably dirty politicians.

A. No one was physically molested here, and it's actually unsure if Foley committed a crime. Even so, I'm not celebrating anything except for the exposure of the misdeeds. I'm sure you chastized pundits for focusing on the Lewinsky scandal because it glorified what was at heart a matter of a troubled marriage, right? No, you didn't.

B. I am fully aware that both parties are full of scumbags, it's the nature of politics. Only one party claims a substantial moral high ground, however, and is thus susceptable to being called hypocrites on the matter. In case you're curious, that's the GOP. For a party that touts and runs on family values (not to mention boatloads of anti-gay legislation), you'd think it wouldn't be so loaded with adulterers, closeted homosexuals, and, apparently, child molesters. In fact, you'd assume there wouldn't be any. But it just so happens that the issues that the GOP has been courting middle America with for years are based on ideals that those in the actual establishment could care less about.

[kyleh]

I think it's more accurate to say that the two parties disagree on what exactly the moral high ground is. Both of them think they are on it though.

[Autocratic]

I think it's more accurate to say that the two parties disagree on what exactly the moral high ground is. Both of them think they are on it though.

I don't think that's quite so accurate. I think liberals tend to believe in moral relativism/pluralism far more than conservatives.

[T.N.D.]

But liberals still feel that they hold the moral high ground, it's just a different high ground.

[T.N.D.]

It's now learned that the "underage page" was actually 18 at the time, so much for the "little boy" outrage.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashmfa.htm

[Autocratic]

But liberals still feel that they hold the moral high ground, it's just a different high ground.

No. I personally believe that there are no absolute moral rights and wrongs in situations regarding, for example, sex education in schools. Many conservatives believe that certain topics with regards to sexuality are inappropriate for a school setting . They hold this belief on moral grounds. I disagree with that, but not on moral grounds, but for more substantive reasons. ie I believe it can aid in increasing rates of safe sex among teens. I don't hold a moral position on these matters at all.

[Evilpenguin]

who cares? both parties are disgustingly corrupt, stupid, and ineffective
of the two is say i like the republican party better though, because at least they are corrupt, stupid, and ineffective with style and a "go **** yourself" attitude

but both parties need to be destroyed and the U.S. needs to be ruled under a totalitarian regime for about 10 years
that should give people some perspective

or even better, the whole world should be enslaved by an alien race for a few years

[Johannes]

It's now learned that the "underage page" was actually 18 at the time, so much for the "little boy" outrage.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashmfa.htm

Apparently he was 17, he wasn't 18 until 20 days or so after the IM exchange. There are also reports that the DNC sat on this until now to use it as an election tool.

[Grendel]

Onoe of the most outrageous things that I find about this whole situation, is that the Republican House leadership was warned, over 3 years ago, about Foley's inappropriate conduct with aides. At least in the other occurences (1983, 1989, 2001) steps were taken as soon as the relationships came to light. One could compare this to the scandal that hit the Catholic church when it was discovered that abusive priests were simply relocated rather than fired.

Also, another thing that separates this event from the previous 'sex scandals' in my eyes, is that they were all an isolated occurence (not that that makes them acceptable). In this case, Foley apparently had suggestive converations/ sent lude emails/ possibly met pages on multiple occasions over numerous years.

The whole business is incredibly ironic because Foley was so instrumental in drafting legislation that is supposed to protect minors from people like himself.

[Chip]

He did not have lude emails. The emails made some of the people feel uncomfortble but it wasnt lude. What was lude was the IM's that did not come to light until recently.

[Chip]

There are also reports that the DNC sat on this until now to use it as an election tool.

Considering that some of these IM's are almost 3 years old.... I would say so.

[Angus McFeargus]

L-E-W-D

"Lude" is an abbreviation for "Quaalude".

[Autocratic]

Considering that some of these IM's are almost 3 years old.... I would say so.

While I'm sure it would delight most of you, this doesn't seem to be the case.

"These revelations mean that Republicans who are calling for probes to discover what Democratic leaders and staff knew about Foley’s improper exchanges with under-age pages will likely be unable to show that the opposition party orchestrated the scandal now roiling the GOP just a month away from the midterm elections."

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/100506/news2.html

[Angus McFeargus]

I certainly know that nothing about this "delights" me in any way, certainly not Avaulters taking pleasure IN ANY WAY from what this man did or using it to make their precious political party seem holier than another.

[Autocratic]

I certainly know that nothing about this "delights" me in any way, certainly not Avaulters taking pleasure IN ANY WAY from what this man did or using it to make their precious political party seem holier than another.

Please. First, I never implied anyone was delighting in what happened between Foley and the boy/man. This whole scandal is about political positioning, just like all similar scandals. You think it was honest inquiry and not the potential political benefits that led some in the GOP to try to shift responsibility towards the Dems? I

[T.N.D.]

Another interesting twist.

http://www.drudgereport.com/page.htm

[Autocratic]

Another interesting twist.

http://www.drudgereport.com/page.htm

lolz

[T.N.D.]

So whats so funny Auto?

[zauggru]

What's so funny is they are trying to make it look as if nothing happened by saying it was a joke. "Just Kidding" won't work on this one Hastert. Face the facts: You failed to turn in a pervert when you knew it was happening.

[Autocratic]

So whats so funny Auto?

That story is so outlandish that it warranted a z at the end of my lol. Oh Drudge.

[T.N.D.]

Theres that liberal morality, if it's from the Drudge report it can't be real, be carefull, if you stick your noses up any higher your gonna suck some satilites up them.:)

[Autocratic]

Who said it can't be real? It just so happens that it's probably not.

[Angus McFeargus]

What's so funny is they are trying to make it look as if nothing happened by saying it was a joke. "Just Kidding" won't work on this one Hastert. Face the facts: You failed to turn in a pervert when you knew it was happening.


Has that been proven now? That Hastert knew?

[T.N.D.]

Maybe, maybe not, only time will tell. If it's real other news org. will report it and if its fake that will also come out. But to outright dissmiss it because it's at the Drudge Report sure sounds like liberal snobery.:)

[Autocratic]

Maybe, maybe not, only time will tell. If it's real other news org. will report it and if its fake that will also come out. But to outright dissmiss it because it's at the Drudge Report sure sounds like liberal snobery.:)

I'm not outright dismissing it, but I don't take it as seriously as if it were a legit news source (even Fox).

[kyleh]

I don't hold a moral position on these matters at all.

That's a semantic difference, that's my point. Just because you don't call it 'morals' doesn't make it any less 'on faith' or whatever. You think you are right, they think they are right, both sides at the extreme want a complete imposition of thier ideas of what is right and wrong. Semantics.

[Autocratic]

That's a semantic difference, that's my point. Just because you don't call it 'morals' doesn't make it any less 'on faith' or whatever. You think you are right, they think they are right, both sides at the extreme want a complete imposition of thier ideas of what is right and wrong. Semantics.

It's not really semantics, on matters of sexuality etc. the conservative position is based upon a perceived absolute moral code, and the liberal position is based on liberty/rights arguments. These aren't traditional moral viewpoints, and referring to a "moral high ground" is different than referring to a viewpoint that someone perceives are correct for more substantive reasons.

[kyleh]

The definition of 'substantive reasons' is absolute now? Well that would seem then like there would be a clear winner rather than the 50/50 split. haha

[Autocratic]

All I was claiming was that liberals tend not to believe in moral absolutism. Call it what you want, it's not a "moral high ground."

[Johannes]

All I was claiming was that liberals tend not to believe in moral absolutism. Call it what you want, it's not a "moral high ground."

You think that because Liberals don't take consistently firm moral positions that they don't think they have the moral high ground? Please, tell me another good one. They all think they have the moral high ground just as much as Conservatives do.

[Autocratic]

You think that because Liberals don't take consistently firm moral positions that they don't think they have the moral high ground? Please, tell me another good one. They all think they have the moral high ground just as much as Conservatives do.

How exactly can one define a moral high ground without absolute morality?

[OmegaBob]

wow! This is 4 pages long (on my forum settings)

That is all.

[Autocratic]

It's only 1 on mine! But we should really get back on the Republicans trying to touch little boys issue.

[Johannes]

How exactly can one define a moral high ground without absolute morality?

Even with a relative spectrum it's very easy to say "I'm more moral than you" and happens every day. I have also seen plenty of Liberals take very clear positions about morality - on subjects such as touching little boys.

[Wingnut]

Um 'liberals' say they are better than conservative because of their flexible/relativistic moral view. When you claim that your way is better, you are claiming the high ground.

/both parties suck and have no morals or ethics as far as I am concerned.

[Autocratic]

I didn't say I didn't take any kind of high ground, I clearly support liberal ideals above conservative ones.

[Angus McFeargus]

Obi-Wan: "I have the high ground! I win!"

[tag]

I'm only mildly interested in this one. As far as I can see Foley was clearly over the line, several top Republican representatives knew about it and tried to get him to behave without raising too much of a fuss. Pretty standard stuff for the political leadership of either party.

Whats funny is that it happened to the party that is so obnoxious about family values all the time. And, yeah, I am slightly amused. It seems like the only innocent one really damaged is the poor intern- who got outed by a conservative blogger by the way.

What is far more profound is the recent guilty conviction of Rep. Ney on bribery charges. I will leave his political affiliation to the imagination of those of you who are too dense to already know about it. Oh yeah, and the fact that Grover Norquist took money from Abramoff to write editorials. Another fine champion of American values.

And, hey, how about that insubordinate Brit general? Sounds like the GOP is going to have to throw a little money his way to get him to tow the party line. But they know how, as evidenced by Grover, and the right thinking editorialists and journalists in FLA and Iraq.

[Chip]

You know if Al Gore hadn't invented the internet this would not have happened :D

[Thud]

You know if Al Gore hadn't invented the internet this would not have happened :D

God, don't Republicans/Conservatives ever get any new material?

Al Gore invented the internet (snicker snicker). Yawn.

Edit: Now if you want some comedy (OK, maybe bathos is a better description), check this out:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1923879,00.html

[Chip]

See, this is the problem with Liberals. No sense of humor.

[Thud]

See, this is the problem with Liberals. No sense of humor.

As far as I can see, the main difference between Liberals and Conservatives in terms of humor is that Liberals are usually intentionally funny whereas Conservatives are more often funny unintentionally. Oh well, as long as the public is amused - that's all that mutters [sic]! :)

[Evilpenguin]

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/8397/foleyta3.jpg

[Chip]

Why does the guy in teh last frame sitting at the computer look like Jack Thompson?

As far as I have heard there is nothing that I heard that indicates he is a pedophile. Now if you want to talk about that perhaps we should talk to teh liberals in Hollywood or in teh entertainment industry like Polanski, Lowe, and P Diddy or what ever he calls himself now. How about Elvis?

[Evilpenguin]

well yeah, pedophiles seem much more prevalent on the liberal side, but thats probably just because the liberals are so accepting of them

[Autocratic]

Foley is now saying he'll name the priest that molested him.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/17/foley.fallout/index.html

Priceless.

[Johannes]

Why is that priceless to you?

[Autocratic]

Because he's playing the victim when he's the predator, kind of like a jackass would, and is going wayyy out of his way to divert attention from the actual issue (and doing a poor job, since this was finally blowing over a tiny bit).

And as a side note, my friend who was formerly a page said that she knew of a 17 year old male page who "hooked up" with Foley.

[Evilpenguin]

Because he's playing the victim when he's the predator, kind of like a jackass would

uhh, you mean like how every other criminal tries to do?

[Autocratic]

uhh, you mean like how every other criminal tries to do?

Peas in a pod, those criminals.

[Chip]

And as a side note, my friend who was formerly a page said that she knew of a 17 year old male page who "hooked up" with Foley.

Age of concent in DC is 16.

[Johannes]

He may not be playing at anything but very well may have been abused. He also hasn't been shown to be any form of predator whatsoever.

[Autocratic]

He may not be playing at anything but very well may have been abused. He also hasn't been shown to be any form of predator whatsoever.

Give me a break. Forming sexual relationships with people less than half your age when you're in a position of power is predatory.

And Chip, trust me, if I know anything, it's the age of consent in DC. I've just found it interesting that there was clearly so much knowledge of these goings on without any action.

[Johannes]

Consent still applies, and no one has made any implication that any form of duress, coercion or compulsion was involved. The age is functionally irrelevant to the position if you're honest enough to make the same argument to a 60 year old CEO and a 35 year old assistant. Most people would not argue predation in that case. Considering that the text messaging was apparently a prank from pages to Foley, it seems rather obvious that we're not dealing with wholly ignorant or innocent children here.

People spoke to Foley and it clearly wasn't anything approaching a secret. Ted Kennedy is still in Congress as is Barney Frank. You may not like Foley either, but he's out.

[BloodySloth]

So... if this kid was 16... and the age of consent is 16... what exactly about this is illegal?

[Evilpenguin]

So... if this kid was 16... and the age of consent is 16... what exactly about this is illegal?
the fact that it was a Republican doing it apparantly

[T.N.D.]

Originally Posted by Autocratic:

Give me a break. Forming sexual relationships with people less than half your age when you're in a position of power is predatory. You mean like Bill Clinton?

[Autocratic]

You mean like Bill Clinton?

Yes, though that wasn't as bad, as she was a more reasonable age.

[Evilpenguin]

Yes, though that wasn't as bad, as she was a more reasonable age.
uhhh... how wasn't that as bad? he was the president, America's figurehead, our prime representative to the rest of the world

[Johannes]

Yes, though that wasn't as bad, as she was a more reasonable age.

So an actual sexual relationship between the President of the United States and a White House intern is somehow more appropriate than an online one between a Member of the House of Representatives and a Congressional page? Your logic here is decidely lacking. So the police should track down people who write online rape stories rather than actual rapists?

[Autocratic]

So an actual sexual relationship between the President of the United States and a White House intern is somehow more appropriate than an online one between a Member of the House of Representatives and a Congressional page? Your logic here is decidely lacking. So the police should track down people who write online rape stories rather than actual rapists?

I am assuming that Foley had physical relationships with pages as well. And from what I've heard, he did.

[Evilpenguin]

well, as the saying goes: "assuming makes an *** out of you an me"

[Autocratic]

well, as the saying goes: "assuming makes an *** out of you an me"

And like I said, I am friends with former pages who have witnessed what appeared to be physical relationships, so I think it's a good assumption.

[Johannes]

It's still an assumption. Nothing has been proven so far. The point stands and your logic remains lacking - an actual physical relationship between POTUS and a White House intern is considerably more egregious than a cyber-relationship and certainly far more than your assumptions based on the assumptions of your friends.

[Autocratic]

You think the prestigiousness of the office makes the offense somehow worse?

[Johannes]

You think the prestigiousness of the office makes the offense somehow worse?

And I quote "Forming sexual relationships with people less than half your age when you're in a position of power is predatory." Not the prestige, the power.

There is no more powerful office than the President of the United States. Despite public perceptions, the office of Member of the House of Representatives is not particularly powerful. Representatives certainly aren't able to use compulsion in the way that POTUS can.

However, that still remains secondary to the point that the offenses in question are substantiall different. President Clinton did indeed have a sexual relationship (which included having sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky) with an intern. Mark Foley engaged in cybersex at most with a page. Again, the police go after actual criminals and not people who write about them. Go ahead and write a story about murder - that's fine. Just don't commit murder.

[Thud]

OK, I've been following this Heated debate for some time now and I'm going to wager either on Autocratic taking it within 10-15 posts or the discussion degenerating into yet another Conservative/Liberal mud-flinging extravaganza. Takers?

Edit: I should stay out of Heated. I find it hard to take these things seriously any more...

[Evilpenguin]

ok, so Mark Foley, a Rep. representative and known homosexual sent sexually explicit emails to a young page, and lets say Foley did have sex with said page, the page was of the age of consent, and Foley was unmarried, so he wasn't even cheating
Foley had a moderate and supportive stance on gay rights, so he wasn't even a hypocrite
Foley's sexuality was made a political issue by conservative republicans, and he was pretty much forced to resign

and in an effort to save face, Foley started playing the victim by blaming his actions on alcoholism and being abused as a child

so...
nothing illegal, nothing even unethical (other than his attempts to save face, which might actually be true, and hence, completely ethical)
so apparently the issues here are:
A) he is a cradle robber, which, like those who are attracted to those much older than they are, is kind of weird, but nothing more
B) he is a republican
and C) he is gay

well, with my oldest sister being a republican, a lesbian, and living with a woman 6 years younger than her, i cant say i see anything wrong that

[Autocratic]

And I quote "Forming sexual relationships with people less than half your age when you're in a position of power is predatory." Not the prestige, the power.

There is no more powerful office than the President of the United States. Despite public perceptions, the office of Member of the House of Representatives is not particularly powerful. Representatives certainly aren't able to use compulsion in the way that POTUS can.

However, that still remains secondary to the point that the offenses in question are substantiall different. President Clinton did indeed have a sexual relationship (which included having sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky) with an intern. Mark Foley engaged in cybersex at most with a page. Again, the police go after actual criminals and not people who write about them. Go ahead and write a story about murder - that's fine. Just don't commit murder.

Prestigiousness, power, whatever. You're saying the level of offense is dependent upon the status of the offense, I disagree. It makes using that power easier if the power is more substantial, but the nature of the offense is the same. And Foley did not engage in cybersex "at most." That is clearly misleading. I don't doubt for a second that he has had physical relationships with pages, not only because it's been reported to be likely through witnesses of his behavior, but because I know a former page who said it was common knowledge at the time. Call it a poor source, but it's closer to the source and more honest than much of what the media has been able to extract so far. Of course, he's innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but the court of Avault is allowed to be slightly less forgiving.

[kinein]

I don't think mentioning the political party will help at all with the situation. Foley is a sick pervert. Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, Independents, etc. all have perverts. Sorry Auto, but you can't label all Republicans as perverts.

Well said, came to this discussion late, but haha great topic name tho!

[Johannes]

Prestigiousness, power, whatever. You're saying the level of offense is dependent upon the status of the offense, I disagree. It makes using that power easier if the power is more substantial, but the nature of the offense is the same. And Foley did not engage in cybersex "at most." That is clearly misleading. I don't doubt for a second that he has had physical relationships with pages, not only because it's been reported to be likely through witnesses of his behavior, but because I know a former page who said it was common knowledge at the time. Call it a poor source, but it's closer to the source and more honest than much of what the media has been able to extract so far. Of course, he's innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but the court of Avault is allowed to be slightly less forgiving.

Auto, you're not being consistent here.

We're not talking about the same offense. There is no valid comparisson between inappropriate emails and sexual relations. There is also a massive gulf between POTUS and a representative. Coercion doesn't apply if there is no ability to compel involved.

It is factual that President Clinton was engaged in a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. You are claiming a relationship based on gossip from pages - without question that's a poor source and there is no reason to accept it as being any more honest and forthright than either Foley or Clinton. I'm certainly not saying anything misleading, but dealing with what I know to be true. That you "don't doubt for a second" is very nice an all and will of course be filed accordingly ("Autocratic's assertions based on anecdotal evidence at best" should be the proper folder :p ), but it in no way impels me as a disinterested observer to accept that your point of view is somehow any more valid.

[Autocratic]

I find it more of a leap of faith that his outstanding moral fiber made him want to have sex with boys, but at the same time kept it to cybersex. Also, you don't need to talk to pages that I know to get this information, you can talk to the dozens that have been interviewed in the mainstream media.

[Johannes]

Sex with boys? While I do consider teenagers and collge students to be children the law in Washington DC considers them to be adults over the legal age of consent for sexual behavior.

I can go outside on the street and talk to dozens of people who think that 9/11 was a government conspiracy, caused by Jews or part of an ongoing Illuminati plot - none of that makes any of those ideas true or brings them any closer to the realm of reality. You cited a single source and one that is frankly unrealiable. To date, there is no actual evidence that Foley engage in any unlawful sexual conduct or coerced anyone. Your argument seems to be purely based on your biases supported by minimal anecdotal evidence.

[Autocratic]

Like I said, I don't have a videotape of him having a physical relationship with a page. I just have common sense and the ability to put 2 and 2 together.

[Johannes]

Like I said, I don't have a videotape of him having a physical relationship with a page. I just have common sense and the ability to put 2 and 2 together.

I also have common sense and the ability to add 2+2. Of course, I come up with 4 when I do that, you?:p Unless of course you're just putting them side by side, in which case it is 22. ;) So far, you're assuming answers rather than actually having them and that is not the same as a logical deduction.

But I also have an open mind and know very well how things work on the Hill. So your anecdotal comments don't mean a whole lot. Did Foley have sexual relationships with consenting people? Probably. Does that matter? Not particularly, no. Did he embarras himself and his party? Sure looks like it. Did he do anything wrong? Nothing that has been revealed. Now if your friends have actual evidence, they should be presenting it to the investigating authorities. Otherwise your friends are cowards, liars, fools or otherwise and at the very least not doing their civic duty if any wrongdoing was actually involved.

[Autocratic]

Why would they be cowards, liars, and fools for not trying to make Foley's career tumble a little harder and a little farther just by revealing more relationships?

[tag]

I think people are ignoring some of the issues that makes this story so notorious.

1) Republican leadership seems to have had some idea that this was going on, and did not take forceful steps to stop it.

2) 16 may be the age of consent in DC, but there were clear ethical guidelines to protect pages from sexual predation by congressman.

3) The Republicans frequently brag about how they are the party of values, and how there own personal conduct is so much better than that of liberals.

4) Conservatives actively work to deny homosexuals the ability to openly serve in the military, the ability to marry one another, the ability to adopt children by a couple composed of two committed homosexuals. Foley, with the help of some conservative apologists, is trying now to defend himself by implying that he is a homosexual who is being persecuted because of his sexual orientation.

[Johannes]

They'd be cowards, liars and fools if all they're doing is telling people like you and spreading rumours. Of course, that also means that they would also have to face public scrutiny and ensure that they have more to go on. All you have presented so far is page's gossip, and that't quite worthless.

Tag, it seems that quite a few people in both parties knew that Foley had an interest in younger men and seems clear that Democracts sat on the story until they could turn it to political advantage. This story is "notorious" because the press has chosen to make it so and pretty much only for that reason.

[Chip]

Unless I have missed something, it is my understanding that he did not make any advances until they were no longer interning.

It is amazing though that people seem to be painting him as a pedophile. If he was a pedophile then Palozzi would be sticking up for him ;) Seriosly though the news has been pretty much indicating taht he is preying on children which is funny because when you have a serial murderer like Dahmer or Casey it is said they preyed on young men but in this case it is termed children.

I have a question. At what point does news become character assination?

[tag]

Tag, it seems that quite a few people in both parties knew that Foley had an interest in younger men and seems clear that Democracts sat on the story until they could turn it to political advantage. This story is "notorious" because the press has chosen to make it so and pretty much only for that reason.

That is an interesting theory of yours about the Dems waiting for a chance to make the most of the story. Do you have any proof? Or are you simply trying to shift the focus away from bad actions by a Republican onto Democrats?

As for why the story is notorious, I gave four specific reasons that the story is notorious. As I said, this thread is largely ignoring those topics. You respond to none of them specifically. I would find your arguments far more interesting, not to mention convincing, if you would respond with specific rebuttals.

[Johannes]

That is an interesting theory of yours about the Dems waiting for a chance to make the most of the story. Do you have any proof? Or are you simply trying to shift the focus away from bad actions by a Republican onto Democrats?

CNN reports and suchlike, certainly not a reasonable evidentiary standard. The same sources for claiming that Republicans sat on it. I find Deomocrats using it for political purposes more credible simply because I know personally that they could give a damn about someone's relationships unless there is a benefit. Sucks, but that's life on the Hill. Your suggestion that I'm trying to shift the focus of blame is rather silly and could be insulting, but you don't know me so it's irrelevant.


As for why the story is notorious, I gave four specific reasons that the story is notorious. As I said, this thread is largely ignoring those topics. You respond to none of them specifically. I would find your arguments far more interesting, not to mention convincing, if you would respond with specific rebuttals.

The story is notorious because the media has chosen to make it so and highlight it. That's pretty much where we are at these days since the media has stopped reporting the news and gone on to deciding what is news. I have no interest in "rebutting" your opinions to make you feel better. If you don't find something interesting, feel free to move onto something more interesting. If you had asked me directly, I would have done you the courtesy of a response. Now, just as with Autocratic you can't prove predation. Foley hasn't killed anyone or violated any laws. Foley is being persecuted because he is homosexual, and the fact that he is also a Conservative results in his being reviled by many homosexuals who see him as some sort of traitor. Ironically enough you talk about Conservatives being sexually repressive yet take them to task for NOT being repressive to one here.

[tag]

Unless I have missed something, it is my understanding that he did not make any advances until they were no longer interning

Chip, do you seriously intend to defend him by saying that it was ok that he made these advances after the kid left the page program? Or that, gee whiz, 16 is the age of consent in DC. Think about it, the whole page thing is basically a chance for kids to go to Washington to get a glance of our great democracy in action. These are families sending their high school age children, who are then subjected to creepy come-ons by a 45 year old man. And you defend this creep with legalistic arguments? That is just pathetic. You wouldn't let that stuff slide here as a mod, but it is ok for a congressman.


It is amazing though that people seem to be painting him as a pedophile. If he was a pedophile then Palozzi would be sticking up for him ;) Seriosly though the news has been pretty much indicating taht he is preying on children which is funny because when you have a serial murderer like Dahmer or Casey it is said they preyed on young men but in this case it is termed children.

I have a question. At what point does news become character assination?

Wow! What you seem to be suggesting here is that we shouldn't be upset because he didn't torture and eat them. Or maybe you are splitting hairs again about whether or not a 16 year old is able to enter into a consensual sexual relationship with a 45 year old congressman.

Come on, just admit that what Foley did is gross and wrong and be done with it.

[Evilpenguin]

wow, all this is beginning to sound like some kind of big troll fest

but anyway, no one would give a crap about this if Foley wasnt a republican, and is beggining to just sound very anti-homosexual

[Johannes]

Tag, why is a relationship between people cognizant of their sexuality who choose to engage in consensual act acts "gross" and/or "wrong?" Because of the age difference? Because Foley is a Republican?

You're coming off as being rather intolerant of homosexuals.

[tag]

Tag, why is a relationship between people cognizant of their sexuality who choose to engage in consensual act acts "gross" and/or "wrong?" Because of the age difference? Because Foley is a Republican?

You're coming off as being rather intolerant of homosexuals.

I object to people using their power and privelege to try to coerce others into having sex. In fact, this objection is institutionalized into the congress' rules regarding fraternization between pages and congressman- they don't want members of congress to make sexual advances towards pages because the vast difference in power is potentially very coercive. This would have been just as bad if the page had been a young girl. All of this is quite obvious, of course, and your comment that I am intolerant of homosexuals clearly indicates that you haven't read my previous post.

[tag]

CNN reports and suchlike, certainly not a reasonable evidentiary standard. The same sources for claiming that Republicans sat on it. I find Deomocrats using it for political purposes more credible simply because I know personally that they could give a damn about someone's relationships unless there is a benefit. Sucks, but that's life on the Hill. Your suggestion that I'm trying to shift the focus of blame is rather silly and could be insulting, but you don't know me so it's irrelevant.



The story is notorious because the media has chosen to make it so and highlight it. That's pretty much where we are at these days since the media has stopped reporting the news and gone on to deciding what is news. I have no interest in "rebutting" your opinions to make you feel better. If you don't find something interesting, feel free to move onto something more interesting. If you had asked me directly, I would have done you the courtesy of a response. Now, just as with Autocratic you can't prove predation. Foley hasn't killed anyone or violated any laws. Foley is being persecuted because he is homosexual, and the fact that he is also a Conservative results in his being reviled by many homosexuals who see him as some sort of traitor. Ironically enough you talk about Conservatives being sexually repressive yet take them to task for NOT being repressive to one here.

You state that you choose not to rebut, since I did not address you directly. Since we are both active participants in the discussion, I don't think that an invitation for you to respond is particularly necessary. In fact, I have now asked you to respond, directly, and continue to wait your reply. If you want to be involved in a meaningful discussion, shouldn't you respond to arguments? Even if it is only to point out why they are ridiculous?

I can't "prove" predation, but sexual advances from a 45 year congressman to a 16 year old page can't help but be coercive- the power imbalance is just too great. That is why these interactions are so roundly criticized, by both liberals and conservatives. Foley understood this- that is why he kept it a secret and immeadiately resigned in shame when his actions were uncovered. I feel that Bill Clinton should have resigned over the Monica Lewinsky episode- that was clearly very wrong, and not merely because he lied and was adulterous, but because he took advantage of a vulnerable young woman who wanted to have sex with him because he was the president.

[Autocratic]

wow, all this is beginning to sound like some kind of big troll fest

but anyway, no one would give a crap about this if Foley wasnt a republican, and is beggining to just sound very anti-homosexual

This is not true, the GOP would seize an opportunity like this with similar vigor. I agree on the tone here, all I wanted was an innocent thread about some Republicans getting it on with boys, and all this anger came out.

[Chip]

No Tag. The point of my post was to show how hypocritical Liberals, Democrats and the media are when it comes to people in other political parties and you and Auto seem to prove that point. You have Democratic Congressional members marching in MAMBLA parades or Democratic members of congress sleeping with a 14 year old but you don’t here the same outrage as you do about the suggestive and personal emails between 2 adults. I do not believe a 16 year old is an adult but in D.C. the law states otherwise. If you don’t like it then move to DC and try to get the law changed.
Did Foley break any laws? No. Did he have sex with an underage Paige? Nothing indicates he did and in fact it appears he waited until they left before any of the conversations or actions in question.

Just for the record. Do I support Foley in what he did? No. I find what he did is unethical but I also find what the news media, liberals and democrats doing just as distasteful and in some respects worse. They are white washing all the good he has done for online protection of children and to help children against online predators. What many, including the media, is nothing more than character assassination.

[Johannes]

Tag, I didn't say you were intolerant but that you were coming off as intolerant. As for responding to your four ideas, I already did so. Foley apparently did not have a sexual relationship with any pages, so coercion and predation are off the table. Waiting until someone was no longer a page not only denies those arguments but could indicate a respect for both the rules and the indivivuals.

I have to agree with Chip here, it's pretty much character assassination. Regardless of how much character he actually has and any wrongdoing, it appears that the press would prefer to engage in innuendo than any actual factual reporting. So far the facts seem to clearly state that he violated no laws or rules, unlike say Barney Frank.

[Autocratic]

Of course it's character assassination to some extent, that's just politics. The law aside, if you do something that many consider unethical when you're in a position like Foley's, you're going to get hammered. And Chip, I've never defended Democrats who have done anything similar, so I don't see how I'm a hypocrite. Republicans have hammered on similar acts as evidence of liberals' immorality, but suddenly it's more important that poor Mark Foley is being victimized just for taking advantage of some pages.

[DanS]

That is an interesting theory of yours about the Dems waiting for a chance to make the most of the story. Do you have any proof? Or are you simply trying to shift the focus away from bad actions by a Republican onto Democrats?

Hey all. Long time no see. I thought that I would pop in for a short hello and to contribute one small item. Ken Silverstein posted an interesting article in Harpers Magazine on October 10th: http://www.harpers.org/sb-republicans-1160492797.html

Ken denies that the Dems were shooting for an October surprise with this ironic quote:

The Republican leadership is lying when they claim that Democrats have engineered an “October Surprise”; there was never a plan to undermine the G.O.P. or to destroy Hastert personally, as the speaker has vaingloriously suggested. I know this with absolute certainty because Harper's was offered the story almost five months ago and decided, after much debate, not to run it here on Washington Babylon...

In May, a source put me in touch with a Democratic operative who provided me with the now-infamous emails that Foley had sent in 2004 to a sixteen-year-old page...

My take away is that Dems were at least aware of the same e-mails as the Republicans if not the instant messages as well (someone held onto them all this time). Good riddance to Mark Folley and baloney to the notion that only Republicans knew about it.

I can imagine what would have happened if the Republican leadership had tried to do something against Foley based only on the e-mails. We would have had people coming out of the woodwork to say that once again the Republicans were showing intolerance of a private relationship between consenting adults (I myself find it disturbing that the age of consent is 16 here).

DanS