NationStates Jolt Archive

How is it that no matter how bad it gets, the GOP can continue to rack 'em up?

[Mark] Foley To Resign Over Sexually Explicit Messages to Minors. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/foley_resigns_o.html)

The truly sleazy part is that Foley (R-Florida) is chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children...

Oh this is bleeding brilliant...

Missing an exploited children??????

Did they look in his basement?

Ah, Florida. The embarassing, flaccid penis of the US.

I want to read this message because it might be useful to 16 year old males like myself

Though he uses AOL its the gallows for him:mad:

Bugger it all, I'd hoped it would be "Cheney dies from a mis-swallowed oyster on the eve of the anniversary of The Pretzel Incident".

Oh well...

How is it that no matter how bad it gets, the GOP can continue to rack 'em up?

[Mark] Foley To Resign Over Sexually Explicit Messages to Minors. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/foley_resigns_o.html)

The truly sleazy part is that Foley (R-Florida) is chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children...

Yep, he joins the Congressional Hall of Shame.

Right next to Gerry Studds (talk about inapt names), former DEMOCRAT Congressman from (where else?) Massachusetts, who ass-raped, er, had sex with a Congressional page, and not only wasn't expelled from the House, but was re-elected by those Bay State chowderheads. Oh, and also next to Boy Barney Frank, DEMOCRAT from--you guessed it--Massachusetts, who had a MALE PROSTITUTE living with him and plying his trade out of Frank's Capitol Hill apartment, and who is STILL disgracing the U.S. Congress with his presence.

So, when gay (yes, "straight" was incorrectly written originally :P) Republican men misbehave, they own up to it, take responsibility, and leave office, while others act, shall we say, differently.

BTW: Foley did well to resign, because his behavior was disgraceful if not criminal.

Isn't funny how all these closet gay politicans are always republicans, the NJ Gov aside. I think half of the members of the HoR are attracted to little boys secretly.

Yep, he joins the Congressional Hall of Shame.

Right next to Gerry Studds (talk about inapt names), former DEMOCRAT Congressman from (where else?) Massachusetts, who ass-raped, er, had sex with a Congressional page, and not only wasn't expelled from the House, but was re-elected by those Bay State chowderheads. Oh, and also next to Boy Barney Frank, DEMOCRAT from--you guessed it--Massachusetts, who had a MALE PROSTITUTE living with him and plying his trade out of Frank's Capitol Hill apartment, and who is STILL disgracing the U.S. Congress with his presence.

So, when straight Republican men misbehave, they own up to it, take responsibility, and leave office, while others act, shall we say, differently.

BTW: Foley did well to resign, because his behavior was disgraceful if not criminal.

1) Was the congressional page 18? Foley's boy was 16.
2) I was unaware that being gay was cause to be removed from office. If the republicans are incapable of fielding any candidates who can beat a guy who's boyfriend is a whore I really feel for the Republican party.

There's miles of difference between consential sex between adults and a senator sending sexually explicit messages to a minor and asking for pictures.

Who the hell cares what he did in his own free time? He represented the state of Florida well -- he should continue doing so.

How is it that no matter how bad it gets, the GOP can continue to rack 'em up?

[Mark] Foley To Resign Over Sexually Explicit Messages to Minors. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/foley_resigns_o.html)

The truly sleazy part is that Foley (R-Florida) is chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children...
I guess he didn't understand that the caucus on missing and exploited children is to prevent exploitation and help find missing children. I hope.

Who the hell cares what he did in his own free time? He represented the state of Florida well -- he should continue doing so.

yeah, I mean if he wants to rape little boys its totally cool as long as votes like a good republican /scrsm

Yep, he joins the Congressional Hall of Shame.

Right next to ...Watch out! It's TEH EBUL GHAYZ!!!

Bloody hell mate, couldn't you come up with something better?

CNN has grabbed the story:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/29/congressman.e.mails/index.html

Apparently the teenager referred to the emails as "Sick, sick, sick" and stopped responding after the request for a picture.

I guess he didn't understand that the caucus on missing and exploited children is to prevent exploitation and help find missing children. I hope.

Nope, he only joined the panel because he thought it would be a good place to meet some exploited kids that he could "comfort" if you know what I mean.

yeah, I mean if he wants to rape little boys its totally cool as long as votes like a good republican /scrsm

I must have missed the part where he raped a little boy. Oh, wait -- he didn't! I thought we had freedom of speech in this country, but I guess we don't. For liberals, if freedom of speech is infringed on to save lives, it's not OK, but if it's infringed on to save the innocence of a teenager, it's OK. Where are the moderates in the US? What happened to the centrist Democrats?

I must have missed the part where he raped a little boy. Oh, wait -- he didn't! I thought we had freedom of speech in this country, but I guess we don't. For liberals, if freedom of speech is infringed on to save lives, it's not OK, but if it's infringed on to save the innocence of a teenager, it's OK. Where are the moderates in the US? What happened to the centrist Democrats?

You aren't seriously going to try to use the first ammendment to justify perving on a teenager by a 50 year old man are you?

You aren't seriously going to try to use the first ammendment to justify perving on a teenager by a 50 year old man are you?

Looks like he already did... eeeew!

Right next to Gerry Studds (talk about inapt names), former DEMOCRAT Congressman from (where else?) Massachusetts, who ass-raped, er, had sex with a Congressional page, and not only wasn't expelled from the House, but was re-elected by those Bay State chowderheads. Oh, and also next to Boy Barney Frank, DEMOCRAT from--you guessed it--Massachusetts, who had a MALE PROSTITUTE living with him and plying his trade out of Frank's Capitol Hill apartment, and who is STILL disgracing the U.S. Congress with his presence.

quothe the wiki:

"Studds, however, refused to apologize (even calling a press conference with the former page, in which both stated that they were consenting adults at the time of the relationship and that it was therefore not the business of others to censure them for their private relationship"

"In 1990, the House voted to reprimand Frank when it was revealed that Steve Gobie was running a prostitution business from Frank's apartment. Frank had dismissed Gobie earlier that year after learning of Gobie's activities."

hmm, what relevant differences might there be here?

Who the hell cares what he did in his own free time? He represented the state of Florida well -- he should continue doing so.

But, perhaps, from prison?

How is it that no matter how bad it gets, the GOP can continue to rack 'em up?

[Mark] Foley To Resign Over Sexually Explicit Messages to Minors. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/foley_resigns_o.html)

The truly sleazy part is that Foley (R-Florida) is chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children...

The guillotine would be too swift for him...

*begins sharpening a spoon*

You aren't seriously going to try to use the first ammendment to justify perving on a teenager by a 50 year old man are you?

He will dismiss you and any argument you make as "liberal," regardless. And rightly so! Thinking is passe - blogpunditmania is IN.

Ah, I love it how my Representative is a Perv....


(I live in Florida)

I must have missed the part where he raped a little boy. Oh, wait -- he didn't! I thought we had freedom of speech in this country, but I guess we don't. For liberals, if freedom of speech is infringed on to save lives, it's not OK, but if it's infringed on to save the innocence of a teenager, it's OK. Where are the moderates in the US? What happened to the centrist Democrats?

The post you're inaccurately responding to said "...if he WANTS to rape little boys." Get that, apologist? WANTS. The post never said he DID. Come on and at least try to defend your party with some alacrity, huh?

I must have missed the part where he raped a little boy. Oh, wait -- he didn't! I thought we had freedom of speech in this country, but I guess we don't. For liberals, if freedom of speech is infringed on to save lives, it's not OK, but if it's infringed on to save the innocence of a teenager, it's OK. Where are the moderates in the US? What happened to the centrist Democrats?

Freedom of speech has never protected someone from them being a fucking asshole. It's a disgrace, and the man shouldn't be in any position of power after stunts like that.

I'm slightly confused here about the connection between his political party and his criminal behaviour. Are you trying to imply that one automatically becomes a paedophile when joining the Republican Party?

*snip*

(I live in Florida)

Well, at least it's never dull. Whacked out congressmen (isn't Cynthia McKinney from there, too? Or is that Georgia?), hurricanes, alligators, college football criminals, Disney World, Kennedy Space Center, the Everglades, oranges, suspicious elections, yet another Bush...you can't say it's boring.

I'm slightly confused here about the connection between his political party and his criminal behaviour. Are you trying to imply that one automatically becomes a paedophile when joining the Republican Party?

Republicans are famous for their Holier-than-thou moralism. This just proves that it's all a huge load of horse crap.

Republicans are famous for their Holier-than-thou moralism. This just proves that it's all a huge load of horse crap.

Eh, misdirected.. But people preaching holier-than-thou anything usually think they're genuinely right.

Well, at least it's never dull. Whacked out congressmen (isn't Cynthia McKinney from there, too? Or is that Georgia?), hurricanes, alligators, college football criminals, Disney World, Kennedy Space Center, the Everglades, oranges, suspicious elections, yet another Bush...you can't say it's boring.
McKinney's from Georgia and she's gone from the House this time around also--she got primaried out. (No outcry from the right about her a la Joe Lieberman. Wonder why that is? Hmmm.)

Here's Foley now-former district.
http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/preview/congdist/FL16_109.gif

Most of the western part of that map is not very densely populated, and until a few years ago, neither was the east part of it, but it's experienced quick growth thanks to the housing bubble down here. Lots of people moved north where they could still afford houses.

According to MyDD, Foley's name will stay on the ballot, but his votes will go to whoever the GOP decides to name as his successor. That can't be good for the Republicans on election day here, because they have to keep the name of the perv out there and instruct voters that a vote for the perv is a vote for their new guy, whoever it winds up being. Can you imagine the commercials? And it's not like the GOP has an overwhelming advantage in the district--in 2004, it only went 52-48 for Bush.

This may put the Dems one step closer to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

That noise you just heard was New Mitanni shitting his pants.

Come on and at least try to defend your party with some alacrity, huh?

Defend your party? Some of us are logical enough that we do not draw inferences about groups of millions of people based upon the actions of one. I could easily call all Democrats commies by the same logic and then admonish you if you fail to prove that even a single Democrat is not a commie.

Defend your party? Some of us are logical enough that we do not draw inferences about groups of millions of people based upon the actions of one. I could easily call all Democrats commies by the same logic and then admonish you if you fail to prove that even a single Democrat is not a commie.
Well, you wouldn't be the first to have done so, that's for certain.

Foley was unable to gather enough self restraint to avoid extremely creepy emails. He was likely trying to seduce the kid into sex or at least testing to see if the kid was responsive. Foley is bad but he's gone now and with no real chance of being elected to any office with the possible exception of some position in NAMBLA. He has withdrawn from the upcoming election. So Im OK with this outcome.

However I am incredulous over the fact that Florida is planning yet another moronic crime against fair elections on the ballots in Foleys former district. The ballots are already printed with Foleys name on them as the Republican candidate. They will not be reprinted. The Republicans are scrambling to choose a candidate to replace Foley. So far so good. BUT They have predetermined that any vote for Foley in the election will be counted as a vote for the yet-to-be-named Republican candidate. The only reason that I am not either weeping or manic and livid about this is that whoever the Republican party picks will be virtually unelectable in the face of Foley's scandal. BTW this is not a partisan rant by me. It wouldnt matter which party Foley was in I would feel the same. Im not angry at either party I am disgusted with those people running the election in Florida. It is amazing to me that after being so inept in 2000 that Florida became the laughing stock of democracies everywhere, Florida did not insist upon training their election officials well enough to ensure they would not intentionally use ballots and counting methods which allow a vote cast for one man to be counted as a vote for another man. Unfuggingbelievable. I hope somebody splains to them why this is a poor idea that might lead to problems.

Defend your party? Some of us are logical enough that we do not draw inferences about groups of millions of people based upon the actions of one. I could easily call all Democrats commies by the same logic and then admonish you if you fail to prove that even a single Democrat is not a commie.

Seeing as how Communists and Democrats are two totally seperate things entirely, the right should stop using that term to attack liberals. But who wants to be accurate?

Foley was unable to gather enough self restraint to avoid extremely creepy emails. He was likely trying to seduce the kid into sex or at least testing to see if the kid was responsive. Foley is bad but he's gone now and with no real chance of being elected to any office with the possible exception of some position in NAMBLA. He has withdrawn from the upcoming election. So Im OK with this outcome.

However I am incredulous over the fact that Florida is planning yet another moronic crime against fair elections on the ballots in Foleys former district. The ballots are already printed with Foleys name on them as the Republican candidate. They will not be reprinted. The Republicans are scrambling to choose a candidate to replace Foley. So far so good. BUT They have predetermined that any vote for Foley in the election will be counted as a vote for the yet-to-be-named Republican candidate. The only reason that I am not either weeping or manic and livid about this is that whoever the Republican party picks will be virtually unelectable in the face of Foley's scandal. BTW this is not a partisan rant by me. It wouldnt matter which party Foley was in I would feel the same. Im not angry at either party I am disgusted with those people running the election in Florida. It is amazing to me that after being so inept in 2000 that Florida became the laughing stock of democracies everywhere, Florida did not insist upon training their election officials well enough to ensure they would not intentionally use ballots and counting methods which allow a vote cast for one man to be counted as a vote for another man. Unfuggingbelievable. I hope somebody splains to them why this is a poor idea that might lead to problems.
Dude--blame the Republican legislature. They make the rules, and the election officials in this district are following the rules as they are written. There are many cases in which this rule might be a good thing for the incumbent party--like if a popular incumbent dies right before the election. This time, it's biting them in the ass. Hard for me to feel sorry for the Republicans now.

Who the hell cares what he did in his own free time? He represented the state of Florida well -- he should continue doing so.

You disgust me. Are you that much of a GOP apologist that you'll forgive pedophilia so long as he votes Republican? Congratulations, jackass. You're the first person to make my ignore list. I don't think I could stand to read the filth you spew one more second.

In case there's any doubt about what Foley was doing, here's some of the IMs he was sending (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/exclusive_the_s.html).

They say he used the screen name Maf54 on these messages provided to ABC News.

Maf54: You in your boxers, too?
Teen: Nope, just got home. I had a college interview that went late.
Maf54: Well, strip down and get relaxed.

Another message:

Maf54: What ya wearing?
Teen: tshirt and shorts
Maf54: Love to slip them off of you.

And this one:

Maf54: Do I make you a little horny?
Teen: A little.
Maf54: Cool.

The language gets much more graphic, too graphic to be broadcast, and at one point the congressman appears to be describing Internet sex.

Federal authorities say such messages could result in Foley's prosecution, under some of the same laws he helped to enact.

And this article says the Republican leadership knew about this a year ago (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/09/29/national/w123452D40.DTL&type=politics).
The page worked for Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., who said Friday that when he learned of the e-mail exchanges 10 to 11 months ago, he called the teen's parents. Alexander told the Ruston Daily Leader, "We also notified the House leadership that there might be a potential problem," a reference to the House's Republican leaders.
Crazy shit.

In case there's any doubt about what Foley was doing, here's some of the IMs he was sending (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/exclusive_the_s.html).

LIES! Liberals! Traitors! terrorists! Muslims!

;)

In case there's any doubt about what Foley was doing

The kid was going to college interviews -- he's certainly old enough to be exposed to more nefarious use of the English language. It's not like any phyiscal act was taking place.

I don't think I could stand to read the filth you spew one more second.

Huh? I don't spew that much filth -- my post count is quite low. Maybe my filth is just ultra-concentrated. Incidentally, how do you add somebody to your ignore list? I have several candidates I wish to pay no attention to.

The kid was going to college interviews -- he's certainly old enough to be exposed to more nefarious use of the English language. It's not like any phyiscal act was taking place.

Ah, sending sexually explicit messages to minors is perfectly fine as long as nothing physical takes place. Thank you for that, if I ever have kids I want you to stay far away from them.

Ah, those moral republicans. Didn't he deny rumors of homosexuality a few years ago?

Well, at least it's never dull. Whacked out congressmen (isn't Cynthia McKinney from there, too? Or is that Georgia?), hurricanes, alligators, college football criminals, Disney World, Kennedy Space Center, the Everglades, oranges, suspicious elections, yet another Bush...you can't say it's boring.

Very true...however I dislike all of them except for the Disney World and Space Centers....:D


Oh yes, I like Oranges too. I have a few trees on my farm.

The kid was going to college interviews -- he's certainly old enough to be exposed to more nefarious use of the English language. It's not like any phyiscal act was taking place.

Dude, my daughter is sixteen, and if a 50 year old guy was perving on her online, I'd break his damn neck. I'd be a bit more restrained if it were one of her friends, because that's natural, but that age difference is too large to ignore.

I must have missed the part where he raped a little boy. Oh, wait -- he didn't! I thought we had freedom of speech in this country, but I guess we don't. For liberals, if freedom of speech is infringed on to save lives, it's not OK, but if it's infringed on to save the innocence of a teenager, it's OK. Where are the moderates in the US? What happened to the centrist Democrats?

Uh....the Freedom of Speech means that the Citizens of the United States have the right to speak out and therefore criticise the Government without fear of retribution. IT DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT!

Learn your constitution man!

Dude, my daughter is sixteen, and if a 50 year old guy was perving on her online, I'd break his damn neck.

I'm sure your daughter is intelligent enough to recognize when someone is perving on her. As such, she can discontinue the conversation whenever she pleases. 16 is not synonymous with retarded.

I'm sure your daughter is intelligent enough to recognize when someone is perving on her. As such, she can discontinue the conversation whenever she pleases.

Does that exuse the much older man from "perving" on a minor? No. The responsibility does not lie with the victim, but with the perpetrator.

I'm sure your daughter is intelligent enough to recognize when someone is perving on her. As such, she can discontinue the conversation whenever she pleases. 16 is not synonymous with retarded.

I suppose if something did happen you'd blame her for not breaking contact to begin with right?

I suppose if something did happen you'd blame her for not breaking contact to begin with right?

If "something" did happen? If an illegal physical act occurred, it would be the fault of the perpetrator. However, if it was simply lascivious language which was the "crime," I find no cuplability there.

Does that exuse the much older man from "perving" on a minor? No. The responsibility does not lie with the victim, but with the perpetrator.

Thanks for saying what I would have. Somehow, I doubt MeanstoanEnd will be able to grasp the concept.

Dude--blame the Republican legislature. They make the rules, and the election officials in this district are following the rules as they are written. There are many cases in which this rule might be a good thing for the incumbent party--like if a popular incumbent dies right before the election. This time, it's biting them in the ass. Hard for me to feel sorry for the Republicans now.

It is not at all about the party to me. Try to set aside the what is good or bad for any given party for a moment. Is it ever a good idea for a democracy to hold an election in which any and all votes cast for Person X will be officially tallied and counted as votes for Person Y? I do not believe it ever is. If a popular candidate dies immediately before an election his replacement should have to win or lose on the strength of write in votes. This would better serve the electorate than tallying their votes to different candidates than the one whose name they voted for on their ballots. In the case of a popular incumbantccandidate's death on the night of the election the voters cant elect their first choice anyway. The replacement candidate (if any) at that late instant would not likely be someone that the voters could make an informed vote for. So the only groups who might profit by this are the two major parties, voters who vote for parties rather than candidates, and those whose heads are so far up one party or anothers blow hole so far that they prefer their party should win even if fair elections are harmed a bit. (And especially if they are so deep into it that they dont see that their pet party can also be disadvantaged as well as advantaged by unfair elections)

Independants and small parties should take special note of this and use the vote tally numbers in campaigns for election reform. Problem is nobody listens to them whether they are sensible or whether they emulate the two big parties

Thanks for saying what I would have. Somehow, I doubt MeanstoanEnd will be able to grasp the concept.

What concept? That we need to abridge the first amendment to preempt older men from having a conversation with minors? I believe that concept is flawed. Your daughter has the right to talk to whomever she wishes as long as she does not engage in any sexual acts with that person, which I'm sure she's smart enough not to do.

If an illegal physical act occurred, it would be the fault of the perpetrator.

The act does not have to be "physical" to be illegal.

The act does not have to be "physical" to be illegal.

Well, as long as no one is physically harmed, I am a firm believer in free speech and personal responsibility. As such, I cannot in good faith say that it should be illegal for an older man to have a sexually explicit conversation with a minor as long as no physical act occurs.

Well I'm glad I'm not a Republican.

It is not at all about the party to me. Try to set aside the what is good or bad for any given party for a moment. Is it ever a good idea for a democracy to hold an election in which any and all votes cast for Person X will be officially tallied and counted as votes for Person Y? I do not believe it ever is. If a popular candidate dies immediately before an election his replacement should have to win or lose on the strength of write in votes. This would better serve the electorate than tallying their votes to different candidates than the one whose name they voted for on their ballots. In the case of a popular incumbantccandidate's death on the night of the election the voters cant elect their first choice anyway. The replacement candidate (if any) at that late instant would not likely be someone that the voters could make an informed vote for. So the only groups who might profit by this are the two major parties, voters who vote for parties rather than candidates, and those whose heads are so far up one party or anothers blow hole so far that they prefer their party should win even if fair elections are harmed a bit. (And especially if they are so deep into it that they dont see that their pet party can also be disadvantaged as well as advantaged by unfair elections)

Independants and small parties should take special note of this and use the vote tally numbers in campaigns for election reform. Problem is nobody listens to them whether they are sensible or whether they emulate the two big parties
Look, all I'm saying is that the reason this is happening this way is because that's the way Florida law works on this issue. Texas law, for example, works differently, and because of that, in Tom DeLay's district, where they've had far more time to deal with the issue, the Republicans weren't able to field a replacement candidate and will have to focus on a write-in candidacy. What should have been a pretty secure Republican seat is now a likely Democratic seat as a result. Different state, different law. Welcome to the world of a constitutional republic.

What concept? That we need to abridge the first amendment to preempt older men from having a conversation with minors? I believe that concept is flawed. Your daughter has the right to talk to whomever she wishes as long as she does not engage in any sexual acts with that person, which I'm sure she's smart enough not to do.

It's pretty fucking sad that you're defending a pedophiliac just because he's republican and you blame "liberals." You talk shit about "liberals" not having moral fibre too, but right now it's you who's taking the side of kid-touchers, not 'liberals.'

Twist that however you like into your idiotic pundit-wannabe bullshit about Freedom Of Speech and Evil Liberals... doesn't change the fact that you advocate old men seducing underage children online.

Well I'm glad I'm not a Republican.

Most of us are glad we aren't Republicans. :)

Well, as long as no one is physically harmed, I am a firm believer in free speech and personal responsibility. As such, I cannot in good faith say that it should be illegal for an older man to have a sexually explicit conversation with a minor as long as no physical act occurs.

That's not up to you, thankfully.

Twist that however you like into your idiotic pundit-wannabe bullshit about Freedom Of Speech and Evil Liberals... doesn't change the fact that you advocate old republican men seducing underage children online.

Fixed. :)

What concept? That we need to abridge the first amendment to preempt older men from having a conversation with minors? I believe that concept is flawed. Your daughter has the right to talk to whomever she wishes as long as she does not engage in any sexual acts with that person, which I'm sure she's smart enough not to do.
According to the article I quoted, the conversations could add up to "soliciting an underage person for sex," which is a crime. Now you can argue, if you wish, that doing so should not be a crime, and you're welcome to do so. I'd sit back and watch as you disappeared under hordes of posters destroying you and laugh at it. But issues of the First Amendment really aren't at play here, much as you'd apparently like them to be. Freedom of speech has never been absolute.

It's pretty fucking sad that you're defending a pedophiliac just because he's republican and you blame "liberals."

I would also be defending him if he were a liberal. Of course, I would deal him a few blows for lack of moral fibre prior to saying that his actions, while disgusting, were perfectly legal.

doesn't change the fact that you advocate old men seducing underage children online.

I don't advocate it any more than I advocate eating at McDonald's. However, I don't think either of the two should be outlawed, not in a country where personal freedom should reign supreme.

According to the article I quoted, the conversations could add up to "soliciting an underage person for sex,"

Did he ever state that he wished to partake in sex with that particular minor? Perhaps his statements could be somehow construed by a certain liberal to be more or less equivalent to the solicitation of a minor for sex, but I'm not buying it.

Did he ever state that he wished to partake in sex with that particular minor? Perhaps his statements could be somehow construed by a certain liberal to be more or less equivalent to the solicitation of a minor for sex, but I'm not buying it.

Oh, now "liberals" are misconstruing his obvious desire to have sex with underage children. This is rich. You're a morally bankrupt little fuck.

How is it that no matter how bad it gets, the GOP can continue to rack 'em up?

[Mark] Foley To Resign Over Sexually Explicit Messages to Minors. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/foley_resigns_o.html)

The truly sleazy part is that Foley (R-Florida) is chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children...

As a Republican, I'm deeply embarassed by this. And in Congress, of all the places...

Did he ever state that he wished to partake in sex with that particular minor? Perhaps his statements could be somehow construed by a certain liberal to be more or less equivalent to the solicitation of a minor for sex, but I'm not buying it.Tell you what--go back to the post where I linked it, and read the rest of the IMs they released and decide for yourself. Apparently they only released the tamest ones--some of them were quite explicit according to the story.

I don't think old men seducing underage children online should be outlawed.


This may be my new sig.

What concept? That we need to abridge the first amendment to preempt older men from having a conversation with minors? I believe that concept is flawed. Your daughter has the right to talk to whomever she wishes as long as she does not engage in any sexual acts with that person, which I'm sure she's smart enough not to do.


Conversing with a minor is legal. Soliciting a minor for sex is not. Pretty cut and dried really.

This may be my new sig.

If not yours, then it will be mine. I want everyone to remember that wonderful statement.

Oh, now "liberals" are misconstruing his obvious desire to have sex with underage children.

I'm sure many older men wish to have sex with underage children. However, desire must be acted upon for it to be illegal, unless you want to create a "thought police" force. He controlled his desire and did not openly solicit sex. Yes, some liberals are indeed misconstruing his statements.

Conversing with a minor is legal. Soliciting a minor for sex is not. Pretty cut and dried really.

Oh, but you're not taking into account the Vast Liberal Conspiracy. You see, evil liberals are slandering this poor man and misconstruing his acts to mean something they weren't!

Lies and slander! Probably spread by communists/terrorists/Muslims!

Also, while child porn and child sex are OK in MeansToAnEnd/RealAmerica's book, genocide is too! YES!

I would also be defending him if he were a liberal. Of course, I would deal him a few blows for lack of moral fibre prior to saying that his actions, while disgusting, were perfectly legal.



I don't advocate it any more than I advocate eating at McDonald's. However, I don't think either of the two should be outlawed, not in a country where personal freedom should reign supreme.


You sir, are strange. Personal Freedom has its boundaries. Boundaries set for the good of society. You're saying that he should be able to have sex with an underage boy is just......I frankly am speechless at that.

I'm sure many older men wish to have sex with underage children. However, desire must be acted upon for it to be illegal, unless you want to create a "thought police" force. He controlled his desire and did not openly solicit sex. Yes, some liberals are indeed misconstruing his statements.

Oh, come on, man, give it up. He was trying to get a 16 year old to send naughty pictures to him. Unacceptable doesn't even begin to describe that.

It's not about liberals or anything, this guy is sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick.

I'm sure many older men wish to have sex with underage children. However, desire must be acted upon for it to be illegal, unless you want to create a "thought police" force. He controlled his desire and did not openly solicit sex. Yes, some liberals are indeed misconstruing his statements.

You're a joke. Fuck off.

Oh, now "liberals" are misconstruing his obvious desire to have sex with underage children. This is rich. You're a morally bankrupt little fuck.

You would think any good conservative would be leading the charge to get rid of this guy. Purging this pervert is neccessary unless Republicans want to look like they don't care he was send sexual messages to a minor. Then again, now that he has resigned it seems certain the Democratic challenger who was like 10 points back will now get the seat. I guess a perv might be better then a Democrat to some people...

I'm sure many older men wish to have sex with underage children. However, desire must be acted upon for it to be illegal, unless you want to create a "thought police" force. He controlled his desire and did not openly solicit sex. Yes, some liberals are indeed misconstruing his statements.

Mate....no, you're not my mate....dude, you're sick. Either that or just stupid or immature. Flee troll! Flee! Before I throw my anti-forum troll holy water at you!!

*Waves anti-troll cross and holy water at MeanstoAnEnd*

Oh, come on, man, give it up. He was trying to get a 16 year old to send naughty pictures to him. Unacceptable doesn't even begin to describe that.

It's not about liberals or anything, this guy is sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick.

This guy is reminding me of a right-wing version of The Red Arrow. I can't remember the times I just wished he would go away in the middle of a discussion.

Tell you what--go back to the post where I linked it, and read the rest of the IMs they released and decide for yourself. Apparently they only released the tamest ones--some of them were quite explicit according to the story.

I read the ones not in .pdf format, and I saw many disturbing statements. However, none of those statements were tantamount to the solicitation of sex. Gross? Yes. Illegal? No.

I read the ones not in .pdf format, and I saw many disturbing statements. However, none of those statements were tantamount to the solicitation of sex. Gross? Yes. Illegal? No.

Now realize that they didn't release them all, and that they only released the tamest ones. Are you willing to concede that there just might be some justification for the claims?

I can't remember the times I just wished he would go away in the middle of a discussion.

God forbid that someone has an opposing viewpoint! This was supposed to be a cloistered liberal haven! :eek:

Now realize that they didn't release them all, and that they only released the tamest ones. Are you willing to concede that there just might be some justification for the claims?

There might be some justification, yes. However, I would need to see the full data before drawing a conclusion. I did not see a statement which was equivalent to "let's have sex in real life."

Blah blah blah liberal blah blah blah liberal blah blah blah liberal blah blah blah liberal blah blah blah liberal blah blah blah liberal blah blah blah liberal blah blah blah liberal blah blah blah liberal blah blah blah liberal.

I'm sorry, do you think you're actually saying something?

God forbid that someone has an opposing viewpoint! This was supposed to be a cloistered liberal haven! :eek:

Opposing viewpoints are fine, and welcome, but defending would-be child molesters kind of goes over the top, y'know what I mean?

And by the way, this place has its token conservatives/libertarians, such as yours truly.

God forbid that someone has an opposing viewpoint! This was supposed to be a cloistered liberal haven! :eek:

Do you even know what Liberal means?

I myself am not Liberal. I am middle of the road, since I hate both sides of the spectrum. (No offense to any hard core liberals or Conservatives, I just mean I tend to fiercely disagree with both view points, and tend to take the middle of the road view with them, though I am Liberal leaning in some areas, I'm Conservative leaning in others.)

God forbid that someone has an opposing viewpoint! This was supposed to be a cloistered liberal haven! :eek:

You know, when you get a clue as to what I'm talking about, then you might be able to join in that section of the conversation without looking like a damned idiot. To quote Walter Sobchek: "So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know... " That's you right now. You're Donny. Just admit it and go bowling.

Opposing viewpoints are fine, and welcome, but defending would-be child molesters kind of goes over the top, y'know what I mean?

I seriously doubt that a Florida congressman would be a child molester. There is absolutely no evidence upon which to base that conclusion except his somwhat nefarious conversations with a minor, over the internet.

I seriously doubt that a Florida congressman would be a child molester. There is absolutely no evidence upon which to base that conclusion

Also, the sun revolves around the earth, because I seriously doubt the liberal lies which have plagued western society since that Galileo bastard (who was working for terrorists).

There might be some justification, yes. However, I would need to see the full data before drawing a conclusion. I did not see a statement which was equivalent to "let's have sex in real life."

No you don't need to see the full data before making a decision. Why? Because he RESIGNED!!! Foley resigned! How bad must it have been for him to resign? Politicians don't resign unless they are already inescapably fucked. Bill Clinton taught me that. :)

I'm sure many older men wish to have sex with underage children. However, desire must be acted upon for it to be illegal, unless you want to create a "thought police" force. He controlled his desire and did not openly solicit sex. Yes, some liberals are indeed misconstruing his statements.


Perhaps you did not read his comments?


http://abcnews.go.com/images/WNT/02-02-03b.pdf


That is all the troll chow I will give you. Dont ask for more

Also, the sun revolves around the earth, because I seriously doubt the liberal lies which have plagued western society since that Galileo bastard (who was working for terrorists).

A particularly well crafted strawman argument, I must say. Actually, on second thought, it's just completely inane. You really have to work on your ad hominem insults.

I seriously doubt that a Florida congressman would be a child molester. There is absolutely no evidence upon which to base that conclusion except his somwhat nefarious conversations with a minor, over the internet.

Yeah, because sex crimes never start there....

I seriously doubt that a Florida congressman would be a child molester. There is absolutely no evidence upon which to base that conclusion except his somwhat nefarious conversations with a minor, over the internet.

Mind you I don't know every detail of this story, but I do know that said minor was a page who had personal contact with the congressman, and the congressman liked what he saw, and wanted to see more. Hence, the request for more.

No offense, but I suggest you go read the full details of this story to make sure you know who you're defending.

Politicians don't resign unless they are already inescapably fucked.

He was quite fucked -- nobody was going to vote for him anymore whether his actions were legal or not. Look what happened to that gay NJ governor.

Yeah, because sex crimes never start there....

Because congressmen have too many journalists hovering aorund them to risk such a grossly illegal act.

A particularly well crafted strawman argument, I must say. Actually, on second thought, it's just completely inane. You really have to work on your ad hominem insults.

Nice usage of bombastic rhetoric.


(Yay! A vocab word from when I was in school!!)

He was quite fucked -- nobody was going to vote for him anymore whether his actions were legal or not. Look what happened to that gay NJ governor.

Or the Marion Barry. Wait... bad example. ;)

A particularly well crafted strawman argument, I must say. Actually, on second thought, it's just completely inane. You really have to work on your ad hominem insults.

Strawman argument? Wow, you learned a phrase! Sorry, but your "arguments" do not merit debate at this point. You're just fucking blind, ignorant, or purposefully lying/trolling to get a rise out of people. As evidenced by how half your 'arguments' involve blaming "liberals" and the other half involves calling up down.

He was quite fucked -- nobody was going to vote for him anymore whether his actions were legal or not. Look what happened to that gay NJ governor.

It scarcely matters that he's gay. What matters is that he's a pedo - a lecherous one at that.

Abuse of authority (the difference between the elected politician and the page), the age of the person affronted - gay doesn't enter into it - it would be heinous even if it was heterosexual.

Perhaps you did not read his comments?


http://abcnews.go.com/images/WNT/02-02-03b.pdf


That is all the troll chow I will give you. Dont ask for more

Oh, man, I quit after the first page. It was so funny, yet so sick. Especially since this is one of some 535 guys running my beloved nation.

http://uplink.space.com/attachments/402507-DoNotFeedTroll.jpg

http://uplink.space.com/attachments/402507-DoNotFeedTroll.jpg


Dont offer the deacon leprechaun a feathered bowler hat?

As evidenced by how half your 'arguments' involve blaming "liberals" and the other half involves calling up down.

Actually, I have not blamed liberals at all in this discussion. You are the only one who is stark raving mad when it comes to conservatives. You're practically foaming at the mouth with the insults you're flinging.

Actually, I have not blamed liberals at all in this discussion. You are the only one who is stark raving mad when it comes to conservatives. You're practically foaming at the mouth with the insults you're flinging.

You're not unambassador, are you?

I tell you what surprises me most about this story. The leadership knew about this a year ago and didn't try to move him out quietly, just in case it blew up in their faces. They had plenty of time to retire Foley and get a new candidate who would cruise to the win and they let this hang around and hoped it wouldn't bite them in the ass.

This is real proof of the arrogance of power.

I read the ones not in .pdf format, and I saw many disturbing statements. However, none of those statements were tantamount to the solicitation of sex. Gross? Yes. Illegal? No.

Maf54: What ya wearing?
Teen: tshirt and shorts
Maf54: Love to slip them off of you.

That's solicitation. How obvious does it have to get? No intelligent person soliciting a minor is going to spell it out. By your logic, prostitutes could only be arrested if they came up to the car and said, "Hey, would you like to pay me MONEY, and when you pay me MONEY, I will have SEX with you because you paid me MONEY. Because I'm a PROSTITUTE."

God forbid that someone has an opposing viewpoint! This was supposed to be a cloistered liberal haven! :eek:

The Red Arrow was a flaming liberal, come down off the cross and try again. I'm a Libertarian and I think your position is foolish. What's next, crusading for the ability to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater?

I seriously doubt that a Florida congressman would be a child molester. There is absolutely no evidence upon which to base that conclusion except his somwhat nefarious conversations with a minor, over the internet.

Well, let's see, he was caught trying, and if one tries there is the potential for success. This is a rich and powerful man, so the potential for success in any endeavor increases exponetially. How many pages do you think he had a shot at over 12 years? I think there is damn good reason, and damn good evidence, to consider the possibility that he managed to act upon his urges.

Actually, I have not blamed liberals at all in this discussion. You are the only one who is stark raving mad when it comes to conservatives. You're practically foaming at the mouth with the insults you're flinging.

I must have missed the part where he raped a little boy. Oh, wait -- he didn't! I thought we had freedom of speech in this country, but I guess we don't. For liberals, if freedom of speech is infringed on to save lives, it's not OK, but if it's infringed on to save the innocence of a teenager, it's OK. Where are the moderates in the US? What happened to the centrist Democrats?

I suppose you're not blaming liberals, just talking about them on the internet, right? Even more notable is that you were the first person to use the word "liberal" in this thread...

Actually, I have not blamed liberals at all in this discussion. You are the only one who is stark raving mad when it comes to conservatives. You're practically foaming at the mouth with the insults you're flinging.

I'm flinging insults because of YOU. Not because of "conservatives." It may be shocking but I don't buy into this idiotic nonsense about Us Vs Them, Conservatives Vs Liberals that you love to spout.

From this own thread:

God forbid that someone has an opposing viewpoint! This was supposed to be a cloistered liberal haven!

I'm sure many older men wish to have sex with underage children. However, desire must be acted upon for it to be illegal, unless you want to create a "thought police" force. He controlled his desire and did not openly solicit sex. Yes, some liberals are indeed misconstruing his statements.

Perhaps his statements could be somehow construed by a certain liberal to be more or less equivalent to the solicitation of a minor for sex, but I'm not buying it.

For liberals, if freedom of speech is infringed on to save lives, it's not OK, but if it's infringed on to save the innocence of a teenager, it's OK.

Your hatred of "liberals" and paranoia about "liberals" doing this, doing that (you even assume, naturally, that I'm One Of Them since I'm insulting you - obviously only a Liberal would be offended by your raving partisan defense of a pedophile scum-fuck) is self-evident.

Deny it if you wish. Cry conservative persecution if you want.

I would be 'raving mad' at anyone who sides with pedophile assholes like this guy, and especially those like you who do it for petty partisan reasons dressed up as "liberal vs conservative" (Democrat vs Republican, but you feel more intelligent using generic terms).

I tell you what surprises me most about this story. The leadership knew about this a year ago and didn't try to move him out quietly, just in case it blew up in their faces. They had plenty of time to retire Foley and get a new candidate who would cruise to the win and they let this hang around and hoped it wouldn't bite them in the ass.

This is real proof of the arrogance of power.

Barney Frank has been accused of basically the same thing, and no one ever moved him out (accused of inappropriate advances on male pages).

Go figure.

Barney Frank has been accused of basically the same thing, and no one ever moved him out (accused of inappropriate advances on male pages).

Go figure.Hmmm. Frank had a boyfriend of legal age who was accused of running a prostitution ring out of his office. Frank got rid of him.

Right. That's so exactly like what Foley was doing.

Don't you ever get tired of having your ass handed to you?

Hmmm. Frank had a boyfriend of legal age who was accused of running a prostitution ring out of his office. Frank got rid of him.

Right. That's so exactly like what Foley was doing.

Don't you ever get tired of having your ass handed to you?

You don't live here where you can hear the page rumor mill about Frank.

He's done more pages than I've met men.

You don't live here where you can hear the page rumor mill about Frank.

He's done more pages than I've met men.

Any proof outside rumor? Any of them underage? Until you can come up with something a bit more substantial than "I heard," I say you're full of shit.

Any proof outside rumor? Any of them underage? Until you can come up with something a bit more substantial than "I heard," I say you're full of shit.

Not much more than the Republicans had about Foley, eh?

So, were they waiting for the actual shoe to drop, and say, "the rumors are full of shit" just like you do with Frank?

QED

How is it that no matter how bad it gets, the GOP can continue to rack 'em up?

[Mark] Foley To Resign Over Sexually Explicit Messages to Minors. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/foley_resigns_o.html)

The truly sleazy part is that Foley (R-Florida) is chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children...

haha DUDE! that TOTALLY means that ALL Republicans and conservatives are evil and worthless! now we have proof! good find!

Not much more than the Republicans had about Foley, eh?

So, were they waiting for the actual shoe to drop, and say, "the rumors are full of shit" just like you do with Frank?

QED

With Foley, it wasn't rumors. It was testimony from the kid who was weirded out by the contact, to the point where the committee in charge of the pages practically warned them away from Foley. But hey, never let a fact get in the way of smearing a Democrat, eh DK?

You don't live here where you can hear the page rumor mill about Frank.

He's done more pages than I've met men.

Right, because people never wildly speculate about the sex life of either politicians or homosexuals...let's try to add up which rumors are more likely to be frivolous. Minus 10 points to Frank for being a provocative target, plus 10 points for Foley having victim testimony.

Bugger it all, I'd hoped it would be "Cheney dies from a mis-swallowed oyster on the eve of the anniversary of The Pretzel Incident".

Oh well...

lol

Well, we can only dream. :p

Not much more than the Republicans had about Foley, eh?

So, were they waiting for the actual shoe to drop, and say, "the rumors are full of shit" just like you do with Frank?

QED

Do you honestly think he'd resign a month before the election if it were just rumors?

There's more to the story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901574.html). Apparently, Hastert, the Speaker of the House, knew about the situation for a while, despite his staff's claim to the contrary.
House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of some "contact" between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and that Hastert assured him "we're taking care of it."

It was not immediately clear what actions Hastert took. His spokesman had said earlier that the speaker did not know of the sexually charged e-mails between Foley and the boy.
I wonder how fast this story is going to spread and how many others it'll take down. It's so much fun to see the group in power start eating their own to try to save themselves.

So the ACLU defends pedophiles, and the republican congress *are* pedophiles.

uh, damn, uhh ACLU

You don't live here where you can hear the page rumor mill about Frank.

He's done more pages than I've met men.

I've heard rumors that the current Administration staged the 9/11 attacks. Must be true.

Freedom of speech has never protected someone from them being a fucking asshole.
What about the KKK?

Well, as long as no one is physically harmed, I am a firm believer in free speech and personal responsibility.
So you'd be happy with me going around and telling all your neighbours, workmates and friends (assuming you have any) that you're a child molestor?

Because saying that isn't causing you physical harm now, is it?

Oh, come on, man, give it up. He was trying to get a 16 year old to send naughty pictures to him. Unacceptable doesn't even begin to describe that.

It's not about liberals or anything, this guy is sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick.
OH.
MY.
GOD.

I find myself agreeing and supporting something RockThe Casbah writes.
Have I travelled into a parallel universe?

So you'd be happy with me going around and telling all your neighbours, workmates and friends (assuming you have any) that you're a child molestor?

Because saying that isn't causing you physical harm now, is it?

Of course I'd have a problem with that. That is slander. However, if you had a conversation with me and you said that, it would be alright. I can choose to terminate our discussion whenever I wish, the same way that minor could. However, I cannot erase the suspicions of my acquaintances.

How is it that no matter how bad it gets, the GOP can continue to rack 'em up?

[Mark] Foley To Resign Over Sexually Explicit Messages to Minors. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/foley_resigns_o.html)

The truly sleazy part is that Foley (R-Florida) is chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children...

Ahh.... The stench of corrupt congressmen....It just doesn't seem to go away.

Of course I'd have a problem with that. That is slander. However, if you had a conversation with me and you said that, it would be alright. I can choose to terminate our discussion whenever I wish, the same way that minor could. However, I cannot erase the suspicions of my acquaintances.

Hey baby.. what are you wearing? Got any pictures?

Hey baby.. what are you wearing? Got any pictures?

I do not wish to answer such questions. If you persist in asking such questions, I will no longer converse with you.

See how easy it is?

I do not wish to answer such questions. If you persist in asking such questions, I will no longer converse with you.

See how easy it is?

OOh playin hard to get. Fiesty.

OOh playin hard to get. Fiesty.

Very well, sir. You have been added to my ignore list. I already told you that I did not want to partake in such conversations.

Not so difficult, eh?

Somehow I doubt most internet peados would be that blatant

I do not wish to answer such questions. If you persist in asking such questions, I will no longer converse with you.

See how easy it is?

Not everyone can break off such an encounter, especially if they are feeling vulnerable or lonely and can convince themself that the perv is actually good for them, especially if the perv is in a position of power over the minor. Situation is a bit different then this example you are trying to give.

Besides, pervs would start slow, being direct like that at the start would probably scare the kids off.

Hey, I don't care if this guy was Democrat, Republican, Independent, whatever. What he did was WRONG and SICK. Let's stop making this a political issue and realize that the welfare of children is so much more important than a stupid political party. And for those trying to defend him...seriously....W.T.F??!!?:headbang:

Besides, pervs would start slow, being direct like that at the start would probably scare the kids off.

I see. Well, I think that we should not be stripped of our right to have a conversation with whomever we wish. Apparently, some liberals (and conservatives) do not have similar feelings. However, I find it a blatant infringement on our civil rights.

I see. Well, I think that we should not be stripped of our right to have a conversation with whomever we wish. Apparently, some liberals (and conservatives) do not have similar feelings. However, I find it a blatant infringement on our civil rights.
Oh, definitely. Because grooming a minor for sexual exploitation should be the cornerstone of every advanced civilisation's civil rights.

Oh, definitely. Because grooming a minor for sexual exploitation should be the cornerstone of every advanced civilisation's civil rights.

No, because the right to free speech should be the cornerstone of every advanced civilization's civil rights.

I see. Well, I think that we should not be stripped of our right to have a conversation with whomever we wish. Apparently, some liberals (and conservatives) do not have similar feelings. However, I find it a blatant infringement on our civil rights.

And our laws to get terrorists are not a blatant infringement on civil rights?

No, because the right to free speech should be the cornerstone of every advanced civilization's civil rights.

You seem to be singing a very different tune in the torture thread.

And our laws to get terrorists are not a blatant infringement on civil rights?

No, they are not. What could you have previously done that you no longer do due to our anti-terrorism laws?

Hey, I don't care if this guy was Democrat, Republican, Independent, whatever. What he did was WRONG and SICK. Let's stop making this a political issue and realize that the welfare of children is so much more important than a stupid political party. And for those trying to defend him...seriously....W.T.F??!!?:headbang:

they're not trying to defend him so much as they're trying to defend their own political ideals. soooo often, one side or the other use a single example of a bad person to try to make the other side look bad. because if one prominent conservative is a bad person, they all must be, right? cuz this guy is the best of the best, right?

both sides do it, and its really just annoying.

Isn't funny how all these closet gay politicans are always republicans, the NJ Gov aside. I think half of the members of the HoR are attracted to little boys secretly.

He used to be a Republican. It's not a conincidence. Even he said that it was to cover up the fact that he was gay.

I believe that Arianna Huffington's husband was a gay republican too.

No, they are not.

Wow, denying habeas corpus to suspects is not a violation of rights? Amazing. Must have misread our Bill of Rights.

Wow, denying habeas corpus to suspects is not a violation of rights? Amazing. Must have misread our Bill of Rights.

Our Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus in a time of war. Read article 1, section 9:

"the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

He used to be a Republican. It's not a conincidence. Even he said that it was to cover up the fact that he was gay.

I believe that Arianna Huffington's husband was a gay republican too.

you gotta admit, being a republican does make for an excellent place to hide your gayitude.

it also makes an excellent closet to bury your shameful human deceny in. no one would ever suspect.

I see. Well, I think that we should not be stripped of our right to have a conversation with whomever we wish.

Calling an online pedophilia seduction "conversation" is euphemism in the extreme. I guess bending you over and raping you with a tire iron is "making love" too. Now, you're not against making love, are you?

Our Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus in a time of war. Read article 1, section 9:

"the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

'cept.... you're not at war.

Calling an online pedophilia seduction "conversation" is euphemism in the extreme. I guess bending you over and raping you with a tire iron is "making love" too. Now, you're not against making love, are you?

Yes, because raping someone with a tire iron against his/her wishes is the same thing as having a conversation with someone with their consent. Moron.

'cept.... you're not at war.

We are at war against international terrorism. You know, that whole War on Terror bit?

they're not trying to defend him so much as they're trying to defend their own political ideals. soooo often, one side or the other use a single example of a bad person to try to make the other side look bad. because if one prominent conservative is a bad person, they all must be, right? cuz this guy is the best of the best, right?

both sides do it, and its really just annoying.

of course, in this instance it looks like the republican leadership was playing the role of the catholic church - what with the knowing about it for a year, if not more.

We are at war against international terrorism. You know, that whole War on Terror bit?

Hmmm. Must have missed that memo.

Could you find me when Congress declared war against international terrorism?

Could you find me when Congress declared war against international terrorism?

When it declared war against Iraq and Afghanistan.

When it declared war against Iraq and Afghanistan.

Find the declaration.

Because I'm sure (and anyone else who knows what the U.S Congress can and cannot do is sure too) that ''Congress declares war on International Terrorism'' =/= the actions in Iraq/ Afghanistan.

When it declared war against Iraq and Afghanistan.

UNA reappears with his 'do you know me' thread and this guy arrives with his republicans should defend paedophiles rhetoric.

Coincidence? I think not.

I'm sure many older men wish to have sex with underage children. However, desire must be acted upon for it to be illegal, unless you want to create a "thought police" force. He controlled his desire and did not openly solicit sex. Yes, some liberals are indeed misconstruing his statements.

He DID act on it. He asked a minor child for pictures, he described lewd activities and urged the minor to participate... read the transcripts.

Had this minor child actually been an FBI agent on a sting, the next time Foley entered the same building where this minor child was working, Foley would have been arrested, charged with intent to commit sexual abuse on a minor, and thrown into jail. And at that, the FBI agent might well have LED Foley into some of the statements which this ACTUAL minor child seemed quite clearly to be trying to avoid. So, equally clearly, Foley was driving the conversation.

The saddest part is that he knew exactly what he was doing. He was the chairman of the committee trying to strengthen laws to protect children from this very thing. Which makes it so much sadder and sicker. Like an abusing priest, in a position of knowledge and power, it made it so much easier for him when he chose to abuse that power.

As to freedom of speech, no such issue pertains here. In this society we DO have laws that curtail freedom of speech in cases where it is harmful (for instance, if someone were to tell all your neighbors you were a pedophile, Means, it might be slander). In this particular case, what Foley was SAYING to this child WAS harmful, and thusly correctly regulated. Were he having such a conversation with an adult, it would be judged to be consensual, but this is NOT the case with a child. Solicitation of a minor is illegal. Solicitation. Even if it never GETS to be actual sex, the process of solicitation is illegal. Foley was directing the child to take off his clothes, masturbate, send pictures, and tell Foley what sort of a present he wanted. Solicitation and manipulation. Plain, simple and wrong.

Yes, because raping someone with a tire iron against his/her wishes is the same thing as having a conversation with someone with their consent. Moron.

Children can't consent to sexual activity with an adult. Moron.

So as long as you're being backwards, I may as well point out how you would indeed consent to .. making love .. with a tire iron.

Calling an online pedophilia seduction "conversation" is euphemism in the extreme. I guess bending you over and raping you with a tire iron is "making love" too. Now, you're not against making love, are you?

Yes, because raping someone with a tire iron against his/her wishes is the same thing as having a conversation with someone with their consent. Moron.

No, online pedophilia seduction is quite similar to raping someone with a tire iron against his/her wishes. Try to keep up.

Our Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus in a time of war. Read article 1, section 9:

"the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

I don't agree with that part but regardless we haven't declared war against terrorism. It is just a term used for sound bytes. It is simply an excuse to give government more power and to dodge laws that protect people to make the governments life easier. Sounds nice but we have these protections for a reason.

When it declared war against Iraq and Afghanistan.

OK... I'll buy one ticket for this merry-go-round again, but them I am getting off, because it makes me nauseous.

The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. The terrorists were not FROM Iraq.

OK... done with that.

Children can't consent to sexual activity with an adult.

technically, in dc 16 is the age of consent. however, a law that rep. foley (perv-fl) was a co-sponsor of declared that his little im chats with a minor are criminal. nice work there on his part.

OK... I'll buy one ticket for this merry-go-round again, but them I am getting off, because it makes me nauseous.

The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. The terrorists were not FROM Iraq.

OK... done with that.

You will be hard pressed convincing a lot of people of that. Misinformation the government puts out has done its job.

You will be hard pressed convincing a lot of people of that. Misinformation the government puts out has done its job.

Believe me, I know. My neighbor downstairs is one of those "kill every man, woman and child in the middle east, they are ALL terrorists anyway. Nuke them now and be done with it" types. Scares the hell out of me talking to him. He is still convinced that Sadam gave Iraqs WMDs to Osama. Seriously. It freaks me out. I have a friend who is Nepalese. I cannot invite her to my place, I refuse to subject her to that, my neighbor would hear "foriegn accent" and see "brown skin" and that would mean SHE was a terrorist. Never mind trying to explain to him WHERE Nepal actually is. Crazy.

technically, in dc 16 is the age of consent. however, a law that rep. foley (perv-fl) was a co-sponsor of declared that his little im chats with a minor are criminal. nice work there on his part.

Ummm...nope...

Washington D.C. - Age of Consent Laws
The following information was taken from the Online Source for the District of Columbia at http://dccode.westgroup.com/home/dccodes/default.wl


§ 22-3008. First degree child sexual abuse.


Whoever, being at least 4 years older than a child, engages in a sexual act with that child or causes that child to engage in a sexual act shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life and, in addition, may be fined an amount not to exceed $250,000. However, the court may impose a prison sentence in excess of 30 years only in accordance with § 22-3020 or § 24-403.01(b-2). For purposes of imprisonment following revocation of release authorized by § 24-403.01(b)(7), the offense defined by this section is a Class A felony.

§ 22-3009. Second degree child sexual abuse.


Whoever, being at least 4 years older than a child, engages in sexual contact with that child or causes that child to engage in sexual contact shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years and, in addition, may be fined in an amount not to exceed $100,000.

§ 22-3010. Enticing a child.


Whoever, being at least 4 years older than a child, takes that child to any place, or entices, allures, or persuades a child to go to any place for the purpose of committing any offense set forth in §§ 22-3002 to 22-3006 and §§ 22-3008 and 22-3009 shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years and, in addition, may be fined in an amount not to exceed $50,000.

§ 22-3011. Defenses to child sexual abuse.


(a) Neither mistake of age nor consent is a defense to a prosecution under §§ 22-3008 to 22-3010, prosecuted alone or in conjunction with charges under § 22-3018 or § 22-403.

(b) Marriage between the defendant and the child at the time of the offense is a defense, which the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, to a prosecution under §§ 22-3008 to 22-3010, prosecuted alone or in conjunction with charges under § 22-3018 or § 22-403, involving only the defendant and the child.

§ 22-3012. State of mind proof requirement.


In a prosecution under §§ 22-3008 to 22-3010, prosecuted alone or in conjunction with charges under § 22-3018 or § 22-403, the government need not prove that the defendant knew the child's age or the age difference between himself or herself and the child.

§ 22-3019. No spousal immunity from prosecution.


No actor is immune from prosecution under any section of this subchapter because of marriage or cohabitation with the victim; provided, however, that marriage of the parties may be asserted as an affirmative defense in a prosecution under this subchapter where it is expressly so provided.

§ 22-3020. Aggravating circumstances.


(a) Any person who is found guilty of an offense under this subchapter may receive a penalty up to 1 1/2 times the maximum penalty prescribed for the particular offense, and may receive a sentence of more than 30 years up to, and including life imprisonment without possibility of release for first degree sexual abuse or first degree child sexual abuse, if any of the following aggravating circumstances exists:

(1) The victim was under the age of 12 years at the time of the offense;

(2) The victim was under the age of 18 years at the time of the offense and the actor had a significant relationship to the victim;

(3) The victim sustained serious bodily injury as a result of the offense;

(4) The defendant was aided or abetted by 1 or more accomplices;

(5) The defendant is or has been found guilty of committing sex offenses against 2 or more victims, whether in the same or other proceedings by a court of the District of Columbia, any state, or the United States or its territories; or

(6) The defendant was armed with, or had readily available, a pistol or other firearm (or imitation thereof) or other dangerous or deadly weapon.

(b) It is not necessary that the accomplices have been convicted for an increased punishment (or enhanced penalty) to apply under subsection (a)(4) of this section.

(c) No person who stands convicted of an offense under this subchapter shall be sentenced to increased punishment (or enhanced penalty) by reason of the aggravating factors set forth in subsection (a) of this section, unless prior to trial or before entry of a plea of guilty, the United States Attorney or the Corporation Counsel, as the case may be, files an information with the clerk of the court, and serves a copy of such information on the person or counsel for the person, stating in writing the aggravating factors to be relied upon.

Last Updated Sunday, January 01 2006 @ 07:02 PM CST




The victim was under the age of 18, Foley had a significant relationship with him, Foley is certainly four years older, and Foley was attempting to cause the victim to engage in a sexual act (masturbation).

Hi, my name is Brian Doyle.
Even if you have no erection problems SOFT CIALIS
would help you to make BETTER SEX MORE OF TEN!
and to bring unimagnable plesure to her.

Just disolve half a pil under your tongue
and get ready for action in 15 minutes.

The tests showed that the majority of men
after taking this medicatin were able to have
PERFECT ERECTION during 36 hours!



VISIT US, AND GET OUR SPECIAL 65% DISCOUNT OFFER!

over saturate
immediately when you're called."
vegetarian arrow
temptation. That we should take nothing out of it and return everything that

The victim was under the age of 18, Foley had a significant relationship with him, Foley is certainly four years older, and Foley was attempting to cause the victim to engage in a sexual act (masturbation).

So up to 5 years for enticing the minor and then another couple of years for the aggravated circumstances. Not that any charges will occur...

No, online pedophilia seduction is quite similar to raping someone with a tire iron against his/her wishes. Try to keep up.

Yes, doing anything with someone's consent is similar to doing something against someone's wishes. You're taking this to the point of hilarity -- don't try to defend an extremely failed comparison. It's ridiculous.

Ummm...nope...

Washington D.C. - Age of Consent Laws
The following information was taken from the Online Source for the District of Columbia at http://dccode.westgroup.com/home/dccodes/default.wl


§ 22-3008. First degree child sexual abuse.

§ 22-3009. Second degree child sexual abuse.

§ 22-3010. Enticing a child.

§ 22-3001. Definitions.
(3) "Child" means a person who has not yet attained the age of 16 years.


relatedly,

§ 22-3101. Definitions.

(2) "Minor" means any person under 16 years of age.


§ 22-3102. Prohibited acts.

It shall be unlawful in the District of Columbia for a person knowingly to use a minor in a sexual performance or to promote a sexual performance by a minor.


(1) A person is guilty of the use of a minor in a sexual performance if knowing the character and content thereof, he or she employs, authorizes, or induces a person under 16 years of age to engage in a sexual performance or being the parent, legal guardian, or custodian of a minor, he or she consents to the participation by a minor in a sexual performance.


(2) A person is guilty of promoting a sexual performance by a minor when, knowing the character and content thereof, he or she produces, directs, or promotes any performance which includes sexual conduct by a person under 16 years of age.

Yes, doing anything with someone's consent is similar to doing something against someone's wishes. You're taking this to the point of hilarity -- don't try to defend an extremely failed comparison. It's ridiculous.

No, defending a pedophile and saying that a child can consent to sexual activity is YOU taking your partisan punditwanking to the point of hilarity. Agreeing with the law that a child cannot "consent" to such things is just being loyal to the government, you traitor. ;)

Additionally, the kid was in Louisiana, I believe, and they have the following laws...

§81.3. Computer-aided solicitation of a minor

A. Computer-aided solicitation of a minor is committed when a person eighteen years of age or older knowingly contacts or communicates, through the use of electronic textual communication, with a person who has not yet attained the age of eighteen or a person reasonably believed to have not yet attained the age of eighteen, for the purpose of or with the intent to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce the person to engage or participate in sexual conduct[/B] or a crime of violence as defined in R.S. 14:2(13), or with the intent to engage or participate in sexual conduct in the presence of the person who has not yet attained the age of eighteen, or person reasonably believed to have not yet attained the age of eighteen.

B.(1) Whoever violates the provisions of this Section shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars and shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than two years nor more than ten years, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

(2) On a subsequent conviction, the offender shall be imprisoned for not less than ten years nor more than twenty years at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

C.(1) Consent is a defense to a prosecution brought pursuant to this Section if the person under the age of eighteen, or the person reasonably believed to be under the age of eighteen, is at least sixteen years old.

(2) [B]Consent is not a defense to a prosecution brought pursuant to this Section if the person under the age of eighteen, or the person reasonably believed to be under the age of eighteen, is actually under the age of sixteen.

(3) It is not a defense to a prosecution brought pursuant to this Section, on the basis of consent or otherwise, that the person reasonably believed to be under the age of eighteen is actually a law enforcement officer or peace officer acting in his official capacity.

D. For purposes of this Section, the following words have the following meanings:

(1) "Electronic textual communication" means a textual communication made through the use of a computer on-line service, Internet service, or any other means of electronic communication, including but not limited to a local bulletin board service, Internet chat room, electronic mail, or on-line messaging service.

(2) "Sexual conduct" means actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviant sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sadomasochistic abuse, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or any lewd or lascivious act.

E. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to the transference of such images by a telephone company, cable television company, or any of its affiliates, an Internet provider, or commercial online service provider, or to the carrying, broadcasting, or performing of related activities in providing telephone, cable television, Internet, or commercial online services.

F. An offense committed under this Section may be deemed to have been committed where the electronic textual communication was originally sent, originally received, or originally viewed by any person.

G. After the institution of prosecution, access to and the disposition of any material seized as evidence of this offense shall be in accordance with R.S. 46:1845.

H. Any evidence resulting from the commission of computer-aided solicitation of a minor shall constitute contraband.

I. A violation of the provisions of this Section shall be considered a sex offense as defined in R.S. 15:541(14.1). Whoever commits the crime of computer-aided solicitation of a minor shall be required to register as a sex offender as provided for in Chapter 3-B of Title 15 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950.

Acts 2005, No. 246, §1.



Oddly enough, in Florida, where Foley was at the time, 16 IS legal for what he did, but if the kid was UNDER 16, the law there says of lewd and lacivious behavior that anyone who:

3. Intentionally commits any other sexual act that does not involve actual physical or sexual contact with the victim, including, but not limited to, sadomasochistic abuse, sexual bestiality, or the simulation of any act involving sexual activity live over a computer on-line service, Internet service, or local bulletin board service and who knows or should know or has reason to believe that the transmission is viewed on a computer or television monitor by a victim in this state who is less than 16 years of age, commits lewd or lascivious exhibition. The fact that an undercover operative or law enforcement officer was involved in the detection and investigation of an offense under this paragraph shall not constitute a defense to a prosecution under this paragraph.


But since the kid was in Louisiana at the time, it is interstate, so I wonder which rules will actually apply?

Yes, doing anything with someone's consent is similar to doing something against someone's wishes. You're taking this to the point of hilarity -- don't try to defend an extremely failed comparison. It's ridiculous.

Be nice if you'd agree that invading peoples, murdering them and turning their nation into an American colony against their will is also a bad thing. Seeing as how they didn't agree to that form of rape. But perhaps you think that the American government being so good can do whatever it wants whether people agree or not.

But since the kid was in Louisiana at the time, it is interstate, so I wonder which rules will actually apply?

How about morality? Not that MeansToAnEnd knows anything about that.

Yes, doing anything with someone's consent is similar to doing something against someone's wishes. You're taking this to the point of hilarity -- don't try to defend an extremely failed comparison. It's ridiculous.

Not at all. You hinge your entire argument on consent. Legally, a child cannot consent to such activities, no matter what the child's opinion on the subject is, (and in this case, the child was upset and reported it, so obviously consent doesn't apply anyway). Thus, by definition, you are incorrect.

How about morality? Not that MeansToAnEnd knows anything about that.


While I would agree with you, the issue here is also entirely spelled out in legal code, so morality (which is obviously going to be a slippery subject with Means) doesn't even need to enter into it.

While I would agree with you, the issue here is also entirely spelled out in legal code, so morality (which is obviously going to be a slippery subject with Means) doesn't even need to enter into it.

True enough, but even if the law wasn't clear on it, I'd still be doing the moral angle. Law isn't really my strong point. Right and wrong are comparitively simple - childfuckers are wrong.

True enough, but even if the law wasn't clear on it, I'd still be doing the moral angle. Law isn't really my strong point. Right and wrong are comparitively simple - childfuckers are wrong.

He simply had a "mature" conversation with a "child." That "child" was free to terminate the conversation whenever he wished. I'm sorry, but I don't think our right to free speech needs to be stipped to protect people who don't know how to click that "X" in the top, right-hand corner of the window. It most certainly wasn't illegal, and only slightly immoral, although extremely sick.

He simply had a "mature" conversation with a "child." That "child" was free to terminate the conversation whenever he wished.

And now we're back to "making love" to your "bottom-part" with a "large metal object." You'd have "free will" to terminate the "connection" if you wanted and therefore, thanks to the "magic" of "euphemism" it wouldn't be "rape."

I'm sorry, but I don't think our right to free speech needs to be stipped

This from the guy who suggested "traitorous" people go to France or Canada? Please. You don't believe in free speech and free speech is NOT the issue here.

You'd know that, if you weren't such a fucking dumbass.

to protect people who don't know how to click that "X" in the top, right-hand corner of the window. It most certainly wasn't illegal, and only slightly immoral, although extremely sick.

I guess if you close your eyes and click that X often enough, you won't see that it WAS illegal according to the LAW and can therefore continue believing in your own idiocy. Your FALSE interpretation of the law doesn't change nor does it constitute fact.

You'd have "free will" to terminate the "connection" if you wanted and therefore, thanks to the "magic" of "euphemism" it wouldn't be "rape."

If I could terminate the connection by simply saying "stop," of course it wouldn't be rape. If I, for some reason, agreed to this particular method of "making love" then it could not be construed as rape.

If I could terminate the connection by simply saying "stop," of course it wouldn't be rape.

Oh no, you'd have to work harder. But the degree to which you'd have to work is irrelevant. You'd be consenting, every bit as much as a child can "consent."

If I, for some reason, agreed to this particular method of "making love" then it could not be construed as rape.

And if that reason was you're stupid and immature and easily manipulated?

True enough, but even if the law wasn't clear on it, I'd still be doing the moral angle. Law isn't really my strong point. Right and wrong are comparitively simple - childfuckers are wrong.

Once again, I agree with you... Means seems not to (on some level... I am not claiming he condones people who go out and physically kidnap and rape children) and what determines who is RIGHT in this sort of a debate IS the law.

Right and wrong are rarely simple, which is why we have developed a code of laws to live under, a blanket of right and wrong which protects us all and which we all agree to be the way to live.

In this case there are a number of very specific laws (and HoR rules) that were broken, in addition to the complete "what an icky thing to do" factor. So the arguments Means are using are proven wrong over and over by use of those laws, in ways that simply "knowing right from wrong" doesn't completely satisfy. Means "knows" that his opinion is "right", until it is proven wrong legally, as has been done throughout the thread.

He simply had a "mature" conversation with a "child." That "child" was free to terminate the conversation whenever he wished. I'm sorry, but I don't think our right to free speech needs to be stipped to protect people who don't know how to click that "X" in the top, right-hand corner of the window. It most certainly wasn't illegal, and only slightly immoral, although extremely sick.

The LAW says you are wrong. The child was certainly free to terminate the conversation. That has no bearing on whether it was legal for Foley to INITIATE the conversation (it was not).

Your thinking it is not right to strip our free speech in this way has no bearing on the fact that what he did was illegal. Like it or not, the law exists, it was written to protect children from child molestation, and what Foley did WAS illegal.

Additionally, you are putting forth a case which blames the victim for the crime. Never a good idea. Foley, as the adult, was responsible for knowing the law and abiding by it. He does not have any excuses here, since his committee was specifically tasked with strengthening that particular law. A minor child, legally, is assumed to be in need of protection for a variety of reasons, (he may be afraid to offend the adult, the adult may have used various coersions) and is, therefor the victim in such a crime. Saying that the child could have terminated the conversation is precisely tantamount to saying a woman given rohipnol could have said "No" to rape. The law exists to protect children, and there is no legal consent possible, just as a woman who is drugged may SAY yes, but the law realizes that this is not informed consent. Legally, your side of this argument does not have a leg to stand on.

If I could terminate the connection by simply saying "stop," of course it wouldn't be rape. If I, for some reason, agreed to this particular method of "making love" then it could not be construed as rape.

If you are an informed, consenting adult, then it would not be rape. If you are an underage child, it would be. Flat out, no questions asked, no other circumstances need be considered.

If you are an underage child, no informed consent is possible. None. It is not the child's responsibility to say no. It is the adult's responsibility not to rape in the first place.

There is no way at all that this can be considered the child's fault, responsibility or problem. The ADULT is responsible. Always. No matter if the child in question BEGS the adult to "make love". It is rape by law, and it is the adult's fault.

DNFTT. MeansToAnEnd, for having singlehandedly making this the kind of pedo thread we've said not to make, consider this a polite warning that future trolling will not be appreciated in the slightest.