NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, as yall know, over the Summer and for the first half of this semester I worked on a paper called Conservatism in America. One of the section of the paper was that I had to write about Conservatism today. Which includs pundits, which includes Rush Limbaugh. Trust me I didn't like this guy before I started this paper, but I wanted to get an accurate picture of the movement today. So I had to listen to him. Well, out of morbid curosity I turned to the Rush Limbaugh program around the time the whole Foley deal went down. Now keep in mind Foley was having chat with a 16 year old (underage) page of a sexual nature. (So far we do not know if anything actually happened, so let's not assumed something did.) So what did Rush do? Why he compared this to Bill Clinton and the Monica sex scandal! That's right, in Rush's world a creepy guy having internet sex with a 16 year old (underage) page is on the same page as two consenting adults having sexual relations. After that he then started ranting about how it's some grand Democrats/Liberals conspiracy theory to get the GOP and to attack them etc. After hearing that I just had to turn it off because I did not want to lose anymore brain cells. Jeez, if you're willing to stick up for an outsed Pedophile, then I believe you are sick in the head yourself. You cannot compare what Foley did with an underage page to what Clinton did with Monica. Because what happened between Clinton and Monica was between two consenting adults! Jeez...

Today Rush is addicted to pain meds
Tomorrow it's 16 year old interships at the EIB network studio!

disgusting...

*snip*

Please tell my Grandpa what you've told us...

*the man swears by Rush and all he stands for* :(

Please tell my Grandpa what you've told us...

*the man swears by Rush and all he stands for* :(

*pats you on the back* There there, have a slice of cheese cake. Cheese cake always make everything better.

*pats you on the back* There there, have a slice of cheese cake. Cheese cake always make everything better.

Thanks. :)

*munches*

Thanks. :)

*munches*

Hope you enjoy them.

can he actually be a pedophile if she is 16 and thus not pre-puberty?

also, isn't 16 legal in most states, and don't you guys go on and on about how the age of consent should be like 14 whenever they do those "age of consent" threads?

not that I am trying to defend the guy... I am just trying to understand the situation here.

Foley owns at sucky excuses.

can he actually be a pedophile if she is 16 and thus not pre-puberty?

also, isn't 16 legal in most states, and don't you guys go on and on about how the age of consent should be like 14 whenever they do those "age of consent" threads?

not that I am trying to defend the guy... I am just trying to understand the situation here.Yeah, that's what I was thinking...if the age of consent is 16, then there's nothing illegal here, though there would be an abuse of power, which is worth talking about.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking...if the age of consent is 16, then there's nothing illegal here, though there would be an abuse of power, which is worth talking about.

oh, yes, def. an abuse of power, and that surely is something to discuss. I agree on that.

Rick & Bubba, a couple of local radio hosts with close connections in major conservative pundit circles, compared this two the Clinton sex scandal two days ago.

though there would be an abuse of power, which is worth talking about.

Well in that case then it does relate to the clinton thing.

Well in that case then it does relate to the clinton thing.

Yes, it is the same when it comes to the abuse of power, but that's not what the pundits and other Foley defenders are concetrating on, they're concetrating on the sexual act part of it. As for the age of consent, it is my understanding that even if they're 16, they're still underage and if you're an adult, then you can be charge with statotury rape. Of course I don't think it'll go that far but meh.

Yes, it is the same when it comes to the abuse of power, but that's not what the pundits and other Foley defenders are concetrating on, they're concetrating on the sexual act part of it. As for the age of consent, it is my understanding that even if they're 16, they're still underage and if you're an adult, then you can be charge with statotury rape. Of course I don't think it'll go that far but meh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

While the phrase age of consent (AoC) typically does not appear in legal statutes [1], when used with reference to criminal law the age of consent is the minimum age at which a person is considered to be capable of legally giving informed consent to any contract or behaviour regulated by law with another person.

Charges resulting from a breach of these laws may range from a relatively low level misdemeanour such as "corruption of a minor" to "statutory rape" (which is considered equivalent to rape, both in severity and sentencing).

What Foley did was sick and disgusting IMO and I hope he gets everything that is coming to him. However, we must be sure to get the facts straight. So far there is no evidence that sexual acts actually occured. The IMs or emails that contained sexually explicit content did not occur until the page in question was 17 or 18 (That fact is now being looked into). The emails that were sent when he was 16 are only described as being "overly friendly".
With that being said, Even though Clinton was in the wrong IMO. This is not quite the same.

What Foley did was sick and disgusting IMO and I hope he gets everything that is coming to him. However, we must be sure to get the facts straight. So far there is no evidence that sexual acts actually occured. The IMs or emails that contained sexually explicit content did not occur until the page in question was 17 or 18 (That fact is now being looked into). The emails that were sent when he was 16 are only described as being "overly friendly".
With that being said, Even though Clinton was in the wrong IMO. This is not quite the same.
why not?

why not?
Intention and actions taken.

Intention and actions taken.

explain to me.. really.

however, I did look up and apparently the age of consent there is 18, so I am no longer confused about that, but in general you know, that's what I am curious about now.

why not?

Good question, and to be honest it all comes down to age. The page was 16 when the "overly friendly" emails started and I will make a better determination when we actually find out at what age the explicit stuff began. Monica was 21. However, I do agree both Clinton and Foley are guilty of abuse of power.

Good question, and to be honest it all comes down to age. The page was 16 when the "overly friendly" emails started and I will make a better determination when we actually find out at what age the explicit stuff began. Monica was 21. However, I do agree both Clinton and Foley are guilty of abuse of power.

I was just saying that assuming they were both above the age of consent (which I have since found out was not true) why is there any difference?

you know, just like in general, if the age of consent is 16 then shouldn't they be old enough to do things that are not problems for adults, and if they are not then why is the age of consent 16 and not 21 or 25 or 37 or whatever.

explain to me.. really.

however, I did look up and apparently the age of consent there is 18, so I am no longer confused about that, but in general you know, that's what I am curious about now.

Well, it was below age of consent, but even if consent could have been given, it really wasn't. So it's a case of harrassment as well as abuse of power. Further there is the fact that it's a guy who heads a comittee that is meant to catch people like him, where as Clinton never crusaded against adulterers, so there's that. In addition, and this is what makes it ass, is that the leadership of this dudes party knew about it and covered for him. For over a year.

That's the part that really gives me the red ass. A dude who chases teenage boys that he is supposed to be trusted with is one thing, but that's all on him. If he's that way, that's him. There are jerks and fucktards in every circle and it just happens. But when you find out someone is a fucktard and just cover up for him and instead just "warn the boys" then that's arrogant abuse of power that is systematic, not just one dude taking things too far (which in this case, didn't have to go far at all to be too far).

Well, it was below age of consent, but even if consent could have been given, it really wasn't. So it's a case of harrassment as well as abuse of power. Further there is the fact that it's a guy who heads a comittee that is meant to catch people like him, where as Clinton never crusaded against adulterers, so there's that. In addition, and this is what makes it ass, is that the leadership of this dudes party knew about it and covered for him. For over a year.

That's the part that really gives me the red ass. A dude who chases teenage boys that he is supposed to be trusted with is one thing, but that's all on him. If he's that way, that's him. There are jerks and fucktards in every circle and it just happens. But when you find out someone is a fucktard and just cover up for him and instead just "warn the boys" then that's arrogant abuse of power that is systematic, not just one dude taking things too far (which in this case, didn't have to go far at all to be too far).
thanks.

I was just saying that assuming they were both above the age of consent (which I have since found out was not true) why is there any difference?

you know, just like in general, if the age of consent is 16 then shouldn't they be old enough to do things that are not problems for adults, and if they are not then why is the age of consent 16 and not 21 or 25 or 37 or whatever.

Again, this is just my opinion, at 16-18 a person is just not as mature as say a 21 year old. They do not have the real world experience an older person would and are still a bit niave. Therefore they are easier to manipulate and take advantage of. Many of the age of consent laws are archaic. But that is just my opinion and I could be wrong.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking...if the age of consent is 16, then there's nothing illegal here, though there would be an abuse of power, which is worth talking about.

it's also sexual harrassment, at the very least - we know about this at all because some of the kids involved started complaining.

and while 16 is the age of consent in dc (and most other places), foley co-sponsored a bill that passed a while back that explicitly made what he enjoys doing illegal, and even enhanced the penalties for it.

it's also sexual harrassment, at the very least - we know about this at all because some of the kids involved started complaining.

and while 16 is the age of consent in dc (and most other places), foley co-sponsored a bill that passed a while back that explicitly made what he enjoys doing illegal, and even enhanced the penalties for it.Ah, sexual harassment, forgot about that. Yes, that's bad. I didn't know about the bill, but I'm not surprised.

explain to me.. really.

however, I did look up and apparently the age of consent there is 18, so I am no longer confused about that, but in general you know, that's what I am curious about now.

CTOAN covered it pretty well, but just to add my take on it:

A) As you showed us, in DC, age of consent is 18, so all of Foley's sexual activities with the pages at age 16 and post-pages at age 17 were illegal -- solicitation of minors and statutory rape.

Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky started when she was 19 and ended when she was 21. Nothing he did with her was illegal. Not the same.

B) Foley was in a position of power over the pages. He was, essentially, one of their bosses, an adult significantly older than them, a member of Congress whom they had come to learn from. By chasing after them for sex the way he did (he seems to have been hound-dogging pretty broadly, not carrying on a single illegal affair), his actions count as sexual harrassment of the pages. Sexual harrassment of an employee or intern is also illegal, even if the pages were old enough to consent.

Clinton's affair with Lewinsky was mutually consensual. There is nothing to suggest that he in anyway intimidated or pressured her into it. So, it was not sexual harrassment, so on that count, it is also not the same.

C) A boss having sex with an intern is considered professionally unethical. On that point, the Foley and Clinton matters are the same.

D) Don't forget the way Foley pursued his impulses. He snuck out of votes to get cybersex. He showed up drunk at the page dorms in the middle of the night, looking for a particular page to party with. He fed alchohol to minors. The more that comes out of this story, the more violations of his ethical and professional duties we see Foley committing. In addition to being illegal and unethical, it also involves dereliction of duty and shows him to be a piss-poor representative of his district.

Somehow, even with all that sex, Clinton still managed to get work done during the day. Not the same.

E) The page program puts the members of Congress in a position of in loco parentis. They are responsible for the well-being of the pages as if they were their parents. By using the pages for sex, Foley not only violated their trust, but the trust of their families and the public, and damaged the entire program, which has been an institution in Congress since the 1830s.

Clinton's affair with Lewinsky damaged nothing but his own reputation. Not the same.

CTOAN covered it pretty well, but just to add my take on it:

A) As you showed us, in DC, age of consent is 18, so all of Foley's sexual activities with the pages at age 16 and post-pages at age 17 were illegal -- solicitation of minors and statutory rape.

Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky started when she was 19 and ended when she was 21. Nothing he did with her was illegal. Not the same.

B) Foley was in a position of power over the pages. He was, essentially, one of their bosses, an adult significantly older than them, a member of Congress whom they had come to learn from. By chasing after them for sex the way he did (he seems to have been hound-dogging pretty broadly, not carrying on a single illegal affair), his actions count as sexual harrassment of the pages. Sexual harrassment of an employee or intern is also illegal, even if the pages were old enough to consent.

Clinton's affair with Lewinsky was mutually consensual. There is nothing to suggest that he in anyway intimidated or pressured her into it. So, it was not sexual harrassment, so on that count, it is also not the same.

C) A boss having sex with an intern is considered professionally unethical. On that point, the Foley and Clinton matters are the same.

D) Don't forget the way Foley pursued his impulses. He snuck out of votes to get cybersex. He showed up drunk at the page dorms in the middle of the night, looking for a particular page to party with. He fed alchohol to minors. The more that comes out of this story, the more violations of his ethical and professional duties we see Foley committing. In addition to being illegal and unethical, it also involves dereliction of duty and shows him to be a piss-poor representative of his district.

Somehow, even with all that sex, Clinton still managed to get work done during the day. Not the same.

E) The page program puts the members of Congress in a position of in loco parentis. They are responsible for the well-being of the pages as if they were their parents. By using the pages for sex, Foley not only violated their trust, but the trust of their families and the public, and damaged the entire program, which has been an institution in Congress since the 1830s.

Clinton's affair with Lewinsky damaged nothing but his own reputation. Not the same.
thanks you two for explaining. ;)

I get it now.

thanks you two for explaining. ;)

I get it now.
Yeah, but you're smart.

Now if we can sit Dennis Hastert and the various Republican pundits/strategists/talking heads down for a nice, loooong talk...

CTOAN covered it pretty well, but just to add my take on it:

A) As you showed us, in DC, age of consent is 18, so all of Foley's sexual activities with the pages at age 16 and post-pages at age 17 were illegal -- solicitation of minors and statutory rape.

Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky started when she was 19 and ended when she was 21. Nothing he did with her was illegal. Not the same.

B) Foley was in a position of power over the pages. He was, essentially, one of their bosses, an adult significantly older than them, a member of Congress whom they had come to learn from. By chasing after them for sex the way he did (he seems to have been hound-dogging pretty broadly, not carrying on a single illegal affair), his actions count as sexual harrassment of the pages. Sexual harrassment of an employee or intern is also illegal, even if the pages were old enough to consent.

Clinton's affair with Lewinsky was mutually consensual. There is nothing to suggest that he in anyway intimidated or pressured her into it. So, it was not sexual harrassment, so on that count, it is also not the same.

C) A boss having sex with an intern is considered professionally unethical. On that point, the Foley and Clinton matters are the same.

D) Don't forget the way Foley pursued his impulses. He snuck out of votes to get cybersex. He showed up drunk at the page dorms in the middle of the night, looking for a particular page to party with. He fed alchohol to minors. The more that comes out of this story, the more violations of his ethical and professional duties we see Foley committing. In addition to being illegal and unethical, it also involves dereliction of duty and shows him to be a piss-poor representative of his district.

Somehow, even with all that sex, Clinton still managed to get work done during the day. Not the same.

E) The page program puts the members of Congress in a position of in loco parentis. They are responsible for the well-being of the pages as if they were their parents. By using the pages for sex, Foley not only violated their trust, but the trust of their families and the public, and damaged the entire program, which has been an institution in Congress since the 1830s.

Clinton's affair with Lewinsky damaged nothing but his own reputation. Not the same.
Brilliant post.
Now I dare you to explain that nice and slowly to Eut.

He's still haunting this forum screeching about Democrats apparent hypocrisy over complaining about Foley and can be seen wandering in and out of threads muttering, "Clinton...Monica...Foley...Page...Clinton...Monica...it's the same..."

Brilliant post.
Now I dare you to explain that nice and slowly to Eut.

He's still haunting this forum screeching about Democrats apparent hypocrisy over complaining about Foley and can be seen wandering in and out of threads muttering, "Clinton...Monica...Foley...Page...Clinton...Monica...it's the same..."

:eek: Explain it to Eut?! Are you insane?! :eek:

*hides under bed as aged -- excuse me, I mean, retired -- loon screeches in the night*