What an incredible asshole...

[j2k4]

...this guy is.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216699,00.html

A couple others ought to go with him, I think.

[Snee]

This is why it's not totally crap that the people in charge don't know much about the internets, as they don't know enough to protect themselves when they are up to stuff like this.

Let's hope you weed out the nastiest fuckers before they get savvy.


EDit: them being in a position of power and thus extra scary, I mean.

[vidcc]

A couple others ought to go with him, I think.

I think this is one of the rare times we agree totally.

Those that knew yet did nothing should not only resign but IMO should face aiding and abetting charges.

[bigboab]

The usual cover up will ensue. The boys and girls will probably be fired for enticement.



@J2, I am asgusted at your thread heading. You sound like one of them.:ph34r:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/bigboab/ass.jpg

It appears to have backfired on me.

[Busyman]

This title of this thread is gay. j2 musta been mesmerized.

[j2k4]

The usual cover up will ensue. The boys and girls will probably be fired for enticement.



@J2, I am asgusted at your thread heading. You sound like one of them.:ph34r:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/bigboab/ass.jpg

It appears to have backfired on me.

I've been given to understand assholes will do that. ;)

[Snee]

The usual cover up will ensue. The boys and girls will probably be fired for enticement.



@J2, I am asgusted at your thread heading. You sound like one of them.:ph34r:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/bigboab/ass.jpg

It appears to have backfired on me.

That's one messy screenshot, Bob :unsure:

[bigboab]

The usual cover up will ensue. The boys and girls will probably be fired for enticement.



@J2, I am asgusted at your thread heading. You sound like one of them.:ph34r:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/bigboab/ass.jpg

It appears to have backfired on me.

That's one messy screenshot, Bob :unsure:

Its the old hands. No control over them.:lol:

[Snee]

Heh, ok.

[j2k4]

There seems, in the main, to be a tolerance of the "if you don't look, it isn't happening" sort.

The same type of thing that allows the ACLU to defend NAMBLA, for example.

Of course, we have a military which has been advised that "don't ask, don't tell" is preferable to a policy of openness accompanied by a promise to prosecute those who discriminate.

Justice-moral, social, civil, or legal, should be blind.

It should not be stupid into the bargain.

[Busyman™]

There seems, in the main, to be a tolerance of the "if you don't look, it isn't happening" sort.

The same type of thing that allows the ACLU to defend NAMBLA, for example.

Of course, we have a military which has been advised that "don't ask, don't tell" is preferable to a policy of openness accompanied by a promise to prosecute those who discriminate.

Justice-moral, social, civil, or legal, should be blind.

It should not be stupid into the bargain.

Ok a question for anyone.

Why do women and men have separate barracks and bathrooms?

[bigboab]

There seems, in the main, to be a tolerance of the "if you don't look, it isn't happening" sort.

The same type of thing that allows the ACLU to defend NAMBLA, for example.

Of course, we have a military which has been advised that "don't ask, don't tell" is preferable to a policy of openness accompanied by a promise to prosecute those who discriminate.

Justice-moral, social, civil, or legal, should be blind.

It should not be stupid into the bargain.

Ok a question for anyone.

Why do women and men have separate barracks and bathrooms?

Have you ever been in the Services? At bedtime the sheets are various distances above the serviceman in bed. I assume the same hormones are running amock in the womens quarters. Putting the two together would create many problems for those in charge.

Anything put in the tea would be negated by a naked woman walking aroung your bed area.:lol:

[Busyman]

Ok a question for anyone.

Why do women and men have separate barracks and bathrooms?

Have you ever been in the Services? At bedtime the sheets are various distances above the serviceman in bed. I assume the same hormones are running amock in the womens quarters. Putting the two together would create many problems for those in charge.

Anything put in the tea would be negated by a naked woman walking aroung your bed area.:lol:

So it's to prohibit consentual sex?

[bigboab]

Have you ever been in the Services? At bedtime the sheets are various distances above the serviceman in bed. I assume the same hormones are running amock in the womens quarters. Putting the two together would create many problems for those in charge.

Anything put in the tea would be negated by a naked woman walking aroung your bed area.:lol:

So it's to prohibit consentual sex?

I would imagine so. They put Bromide in our tea about 50 years ago. It is starting to work now.:(

[vidcc]

Does anybody buy this "they were afraid of being called homophobic" escuse for inaction from the house leadership?

[Busyman]

So it's to prohibit consentual sex?

I would imagine so. They put Bromide in our tea about 50 years ago. It is starting to work now.:(

Then why not a separation for gay men and women. 4 separate groups.

[Busyman]

Does anybody buy this "they were afraid of being called homophobic" escuse for inaction from the house leadership?

Bull:shit:

It's friggin' pedophilia not two consenting adults. Who's claiming this crap?

[Barbarossa]

I would imagine so. They put Bromide in our tea about 50 years ago. It is starting to work now.:(

Then why not a separation for gay men and women. 4 separate groups.

The only way you could do it is:

1. All straight men together.
2. All straight women together.
3. 1 gay man 1 gay woman share a room together.
4. Bisexuals get a room of their own.

You'd run out of rooms! :lol:



Best just to castrate the armed forces, imho, but because that reduces their aggressive tendencies, pump them up with steroids and PCP's, and make them eat raw meat :01:

[GepperRankins]

:dabs: i'm pretty sure i talked about masturbation when i was 16. i won't name who to because you'll fire them into space or something

[Tempestv]

The only way you could do it is:

1. All straight men together.
2. All straight women together.
3. 1 gay man 1 gay woman share a room together.
4. Bisexuals get a room of their own.

You'd run out of rooms! :lol:


hell, you might have straights and gays claiming to be bi, just to get a private room. ya, it'd be way to expensive.

[vidcc]

Does anybody buy this "they were afraid of being called homophobic" escuse for inaction from the house leadership?

Bull:shit:

It's friggin' pedophilia not two consenting adults. Who's claiming this crap?
I first heard it from Newt Gingrich and Tony Perkins. It became the "talking point" with the usual "pundits" following suit.

I'm sure I could get the video somewhere...... youtube search function seems to be down right now.

I laughed out loud when I heard it. I mean the entire republican campaign was based on gay bashing. They don't worry about being called homophobic when they put forward legislation to stop homosexuals from adopting for example. Why would they worry about it when it comes to protecting children from a republican congressman?

Rick Santorum compared gay relationships to man-on-dog sex, and Trent Lott was compared gay people to kleptomaniacs.

republicans are not afraid of being accused of gay bashing....they encourage it.

[Tempestv]

yea, they encourage gay bashing except when it's revealed that it's one of their own that they are bashing on. then they are real quick to brush it under the rug.

[vidcc]

Here's Kathrine Harris (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7kFyY0hOKQ) suggesting that if anything the republicans knew nothing about it, but it will be interesting to find out who on "the other side of the isle knew about it and kept it secret against the interest of children"

[Busyman™]

Bull:shit:

It's friggin' pedophilia not two consenting adults. Who's claiming this crap?
I first heard it from Newt Gingrich and Tony Perkins. It became the "talking point" with the usual "pundits" following suit.

I'm sure I could get the video somewhere...... youtube search function seems to be down right now.

I laughed out loud when I heard it. I mean the entire republican campaign was based on gay bashing. They don't worry about being called homophobic when they put forward legislation to stop homosexuals from adopting for example. Why would they worry about it when it comes to protecting children from a republican congressman?

Ew Ew, I know!

Cos they were simply trying protect the Republican congressman. Hell if this didn't come out, they'd have let him run again.:ermm:

[Busyman™]

yea, they encourage gay bashing except when it's revealed that it's one of their own that they are bashing on. then they are real quick to brush it under the rug.

Hence the topic starter and thread title.:rolleyes:

[JPaul]

From the original source.


Foley, 52, had been a shoo-in for a new term until the e-mail correspondence surfaced in recent days. The page was 16 at the time of the correspondence.

What's the age of consent in the USA? Genuine question, I really have no idea.

[Tempestv]

then the proper title would be "what a bunch of incredible assholes" as there are quite a few people named so far that are guilty on this one- whether it be the guy who started the whole thing, or the republicans that are trying to claim that they hid this guys secret because they didn't want to be called homophobic.

[Busyman™]

then the proper title would be "what a bunch of incredible assholes" as there are quite a few people named so far that are guilty on this one- whether it be the guy who started the whole thing, or the republicans that are trying to claim that they hid this guys secret because they didn't want to be called homophobic.

Hoi, "What incredible asswholes" then

http://www.2and2.net/Uploads/Images/asshole.jpghttp://www.2and2.net/Uploads/Images/asshole.jpghttp://www.2and2.net/Uploads/Images/asshole.jpghttp://www.2and2.net/Uploads/Images/asshole.jpg

....or are they navels?

The bad part is that there will be those that can't see through those asswholes.

[Tempestv]

From the original source.


Foley, 52, had been a shoo-in for a new term until the e-mail correspondence surfaced in recent days. The page was 16 at the time of the correspondence.

What's the age of consent in the USA? Genuine question, I really have no idea.

it depends by state.

In Florida, the age of consent is 16 if the adult is under 24 or married to the teen. the age of consent goes to 18 if the adult is over 24 and not married to the teen. so the basic answer is yes, when the adult is 52, 16 is under the age of consent.

WTF- some of these age of consent laws are weird- New Mexico: the age of consent is 17, but may be lower for homosexuals at 13?
and Utah- age of consent is 18 but may be as low as 16 as long as it doesn't involve force? WTF does that mean? how does it involve force if it is consentual?

[Barbarossa]

and Utah- age of consent is 18 but may be as low as 16 as long as it doesn't involve force? WTF does that mean? how does it involve force if it is consentual?

Tight hole? :pinch:

[JPaul]

From the original source.



What's the age of consent in the USA? Genuine question, I really have no idea.

it depends by state.

In Florida, the age of consent is 16 if the adult is under 24 or married to the teen. the age of consent goes to 18 if the adult is over 24 and not married to the teen. so the basic answer is yes, when the adult is 52, 16 is under the age of consent.

WTF- some of these age of consent laws are weird- New Mexico: the age of consent is 17, but may be lower for homosexuals at 13?
and Utah- age of consent is 18 but may be as low as 16 as long as it doesn't involve force? WTF does that mean? how does it involve force if it is consentual?

Surely we would have to look at the position in Washington, that's certainly how the article is headed up.

Washington

* 18 - Applies under three different sets of circumstances, enumerated in RCW 9A.44.096. Foster parents with their foster children; school teachers and school administration employees over their students; The third set of circumstances require all of the following situations occur in tandem: The older person is 60 months or more older than the 16 or 17 year old, the person is in a significant relationship as defined, and such older person abuses the relationship to have sexual contact.

* 16 - Under all other circumstances.

That's according to wikipedia.

That would suggest to me that the age of consent in this instance would be 18, given the relationship between the two (however I haven't actually read the definition).

[JPaul]

Here's what it says "...is in a significant relationship to the victim, and abuses a supervisory position within that relationship in order to engage in or cause another person under the age of eighteen to engage in sexual contact with the victim;"

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.096

Doesn't really define "significant relationship. However it does beg a further question, did he have a supervisory position with regard to the boy in question?

Apparently it's a "gross misdemeanor", for which the maximum sentence is one year.

[Tempestv]

Surely we would have to look at the position in Washington, that's certainly how the article is headed up.

Washington

* 18 - Applies under three different sets of circumstances, enumerated in RCW 9A.44.096. Foster parents with their foster children; school teachers and school administration employees over their students; The third set of circumstances require all of the following situations occur in tandem: The older person is 60 months or more older than the 16 or 17 year old, the person is in a significant relationship as defined, and such older person abuses the relationship to have sexual contact.

* 16 - Under all other circumstances.

That's according to wikipedia.

That would suggest to me that the age of consent in this instance would be 18, given the relationship between the two (however I haven't actually read the definition).
that's Washington state- in Washington, District of Columbia, the age of consent is 16, with no restrictions- if this all happened in Washington DC, apparently he didn't break the law.

Edit- after more closely reading the artical, we don't know where the boy is from.
they do say

Foley asked him how he was doing after Hurricane Katrina and what he wanted for his birthday.
Louisiana perhaps? if so, the age of consent is 17
the boy also said that he wasn't the only one that this fucker was emailing

[Busyman]

that's Washington state- in Washington, District of Columbia, the age of consent is 16, with no restrictions- if this all happened in Washington DC, apparently he didn't break the law.

Edit- after more closely reading the artical, we don't know where the boy is from.
they do say

Foley asked him how he was doing after Hurricane Katrina and what he wanted for his birthday.
Louisiana perhaps? if so, the age of consent is 17
the boy also said that he wasn't the only one that this fucker was emailing

The age of consent is not 16 in DC....at least not with a person above 20.

[Tempestv]

this comes from ageofconsent.com page on Washington DC law
CHAPTER 41 SEXUAL ABUSE § 22-4101. Definitions.

(3) "Child" means a person who has not yet attained the age of 16 years.

§ 22-4108. 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. (May 23, 1995, D.C. Law 10-257, § 207, 42 DCR 53.)

§ 22-4109. 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. (May 23, 1995, D.C. Law 10-257, § 208, 42 DCR 53.)

from how I read that, the law says that in a sexual relationship that involves a child, the older person must be within 4 years of the age of the child. however, the law doesn't apply after the younger person is over 16, because they are no longer a child. am I reading it wrong?

[JPaul]

Indeed, the grey area is between 16 and 18, where the "special relationship" and five year age difference rules apply.

[JPaul]

that's Washington state- in Washington, District of Columbia, the age of consent is 16, with no restrictions- if this all happened in Washington DC, apparently he didn't break the law.

Edit- after more closely reading the artical, we don't know where the boy is from.
they do say

Louisiana perhaps? if so, the age of consent is 17
the boy also said that he wasn't the only one that this fucker was emailing

The age of consent is not 16 in DC....at least not with a person above 20.

It actually depends who the other person is.

However the default position is that the age of consent in Washington is 16. That much is clear.

The only ambiguous area is what would constitute a "significant relationship".

[JPaul]

One must wonder if some of you chaps would be so outraged if the 50 year old had been a woman.

[Tempestv]

the age in DC wouldn't seem to matter, considering the kid was somewhere else from what I can get out of the artical. what would matter is the age of consent where the kid was.

[JPaul]

the age in DC wouldn't seem to matter, considering the kid was somewhere else from what I can get out of the artical. what would matter is the age of consent where the kid was.

So where was the young chap.

[j2k4]

There has arisen in the past several days an outcry over what is generally characterized as collateral liability/culpability of various Republicans, namely Hastert and Reynolds.

It sets me wondering where the dialogue should begin and/or end, as well as discussions of context, offense-wise.

I have heard many comments from many pundits, and, apart from strictly rhetorical offerings, I have heard right-leaning statements bemoaning Foley's actions (as well as those of the above-mentioned names), and calling for a wholesale "heads on platters" response.

There then follows the context which is compelled by political imperative; the various other incidents which have occurred over the years, several of them involving Democrats, most infamously Gerry Studds, Barney Frank, and Bill Clinton.

These extended discussions, which, let's face it, are part-and-parcel of the ongoing media dissection, prompt indignant cries of "FOUL!" from Democrats who seem to prefer that historical context not be taken into account.

Given the deplorable conduct of several Republicans vis a vis the Foley affair, what sort of propriety should apply here?

Should all the other stuff be out-of-bounds?

Why?

[Busyman™]

the age in DC wouldn't seem to matter, considering the kid was somewhere else from what I can get out of the artical. what would matter is the age of consent where the kid was.

Ok yes it matter where the act takes place. I was just saying that basically a 25 year-old fucking a consenting 16 year-old is in trouble in DC.

[Busyman™]

There has arisen in the past several days an outcry over what is generally characterized as collateral liability/culpability of various Republicans, namely Hastert and Reynolds.

It sets me wondering where the dialogue should begin and/or end, as well as discussions of context, offense-wise.

I have heard many comments from many pundits, and, apart from strictly rhetorical offerings, I have heard right-leaning statements bemoaning Foley's actions (as well as those of the above-mentioned names), and calling for a wholesale "heads on platters" response.

There then follows the context which is compelled by political imperative; the various other incidents which have occurred over the years, several of them involving Democrats, most infamously Gerry Studds, Barney Frank, and Bill Clinton.

These extended discussions, which, let's face it, are part-and-parcel of the ongoing media dissection, prompt indignant cries of "FOUL!" from Democrats who seem to prefer that historical context not be taken into account.

Given the deplorable conduct of several Republicans vis a vis the Foley affair, what sort of propriety should apply here?

Should all the other stuff be out-of-bounds?

Why?

Can tell me wtf j2 is talking about in one sentence please.:ermm:

[Busyman™]

this comes from ageofconsent.com page on Washington DC law
CHAPTER 41 SEXUAL ABUSE § 22-4101. Definitions.

(3) "Child" means a person who has not yet attained the age of 16 years.

§ 22-4108. 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. (May 23, 1995, D.C. Law 10-257, § 207, 42 DCR 53.)

§ 22-4109. 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. (May 23, 1995, D.C. Law 10-257, § 208, 42 DCR 53.)

from how I read that, the law says that in a sexual relationship that involves a child, the older person must be within 4 years of the age of the child. however, the law doesn't apply after the younger person is over 16, because they are no longer a child. am I reading it wrong?


A 16 year-old is not an adult.

A 25 year-old banging a 17 year-old is still in trouble.

That website smells of bull:shit:.

edit: I love this one


If any unmarried man or woman commits fornication in the District, each shall be fined not more than $300 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.

[Tempestv]

According to the CREW posting, the boy e-mailed a colleague in Alexander's office about Foley's e-mails, saying, "This freaked me out." On the request for a photo, the boy repeated the word "sick" 13 times.

it doesn't sound like this kid was exactly consenting, which raises this to a whole new level.

@busy, any idea what the actual text of the rules concerning this are? and I thought the law on un married fornication was good too

[Tempestv]

Can tell me wtf j2 is talking about in one sentence please.:ermm:

he is saying that the Democrats are crying foul about the coverup and are forgeting that Democrat politicians have done similar things in the past.

[Busyman™]

Can tell me wtf j2 is talking about in one sentence please.:ermm:

he is saying that the Democrats are crying foul about the coverup and are forgeting that Democrat politicians have done similar things in the past.

:glag:

What similar things?

Btw, can you translate and truncate er....trunslate his long postings in the future.

Thanks in advance.:happy:

Also, to bring up that politicians coverup shit is a bubblefuck and Captain Obvious. However, when caught, the proper response isn't "Well I may be coverupper but so are you."

"The point is YOU covered up a gay pedophiliack, dipshit."


Ahhh....I am recalling the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal and the importance placed on it by the Republicans.:rolleyes:

[MagicNakor]

Gerry Studs - consensual sex with 17-year old page
Barney Frank - had some hooker he hired run a prostitution ring out of his house when he wasn't home? :blink:
Bill Clinton - consensual sex with 22-year old intern

/saved the googling

:shuriken:

[Tempestv]

also that Gerry Studds, Barney Frank, and Bill Clinton weren't doing unethical things with nonconsenting juvenilles.

Gerry Studds had a relationship with a legal age male page
Barney Frank is openly gay and had a relationship with a male prostitute, who started running a prositution ring out of Frank's apartment, which caused the end of the realtionship

Bill Clinton got BJ's from an office intern

damn, MN beat me to it

[Busyman™]

Gerry Studs - consensual sex with 17-year old page
Barney Frank - had some hooker he hired run a prostitution ring out of his house when he wasn't home? :blink:
Bill Clinton - consensual sex with 22-year old intern

/saved the googling

:shuriken:

Ok now you and Tempestv are hereby annointed j2 trunslators.

Thanks for that.

[Busyman™]

also that Gerry Studds, Barney Frank, and Bill Clinton weren't doing unethical things with nonconsenting juvenilles.

Gerry Studds had a relationship with a legal age male page
Barney Frank is openly gay and had a relationship with a male prostitute, who started running a prositution ring out of Frank's apartment, which caused the end of the realtionship

Bill Clinton got BJ's from an office intern

damn, MN beat me to it

So j2 brought up stuff (spin?) that has no parallel with the topic (well...uh..oh well) or at the very most is questionable.

OIC.

(that Barney Frank stuff is very questionable, that fat fuck is openly gay? I didn't know, I only saw him on Bill Maher:idunno:)

[Tempestv]

I'm used to being in the minority. I'm a left-handed gay Jew. I've never felt, automatically, a member of any majority.

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

I didn't catch this before, but he used his power to fix 33 parking tickets for his boyfriend

[JPaul]

the age in DC wouldn't seem to matter, considering the kid was somewhere else from what I can get out of the artical. what would matter is the age of consent where the kid was.

Ok yes it matter where the act takes place. I was just saying that basically a 25 year-old fucking a consenting 16 year-old is in trouble in DC.

No they aren't. You're talking pish. Again.

Oh and forgive me for being pedantic, however the artcle didn't actually say he fucked anyone.

[j2k4]

the artcle didn't actually say he fucked anyone.

Doesn't matter.

What matters is, the identified case involved a 16-year-old; proof of a sex act is not necessary.

Foley is a Republican, and Republican trespass requires different handling.

Odd, too, the sentiment expressed on FoxNews by Bob Beckel, Democrat pundit.

Relative to the Foley deal, he said something to the effect of, "Everyone knew Foley was gay, and they should have expected this to happen".

He might have been more on-point had he said, "gay Republican", as he does not normally conclude so presumptively when speaking of your average gay-on-the-street, I'm sure. ;)

[vidcc]

Anyone that has seen the program "to catch a predator" will know there is one statement that with very little exception they all say.

"I have never done anything like this before, it's my first time and I had no intention of having sex"......despite the 12 pack of beer, condoms and lube gel they all seem to have brought along.

Perhaps instead of justifying a difference because "there is no proof he had sex" we should be grateful he was exposed in time before he did.

Foley being a republican is beside the point and really of little consequence. The political problem is the way the republican leadership appear to have handled it.

[Tempestv]

apparently these emails were sent in august of 2005, which means that it was kept secret for more than a year. the guy that is the chairman of the page program said he learned what happened in late of 2005, so why did most of a year pass before they became public? was this guy still allowed near the highschool students working as pages from when the allegations were made onward?

[j2k4]

A
"I have never done anything like this before, it's my first time and I had no intention of having sex"......despite the 12 pack of beer, condoms and lube gel they all seem to have brought along.

Though I will freely admit my belief sexual predators should suffer presumptive castration, we must remember Foley is due the standard legal protections.

I don't recall hearing anything about "the 12 pack of beer, condoms and lube gel" in this case either.

No doubt you thought that was a nice rhetorical flourish, though.

Perhaps instead of justifying a difference because "there is no proof he had sex" we should be grateful he was exposed in time before he did.


Let me ask you precisely who is not grateful; in other words, who you have heard say, "Gee whiz, I wish he hadn't been caught?"

As to the Republican bit, I have a very distinct memory of your having "endicted" Karl Rove over the Wilson/Plame deal.

Apparently Mr. Fitzgerald disagreed with you, huh?

[vidcc]

The comparison with what the sickos say on to catch a predator (obviously a lie given the beer etc.) was made because of the question about the context with Stubbs (the other two have no bearing whatsoever). Stubbs did have sex, Foley apparently didn't. So I simply pointed out that it's lucky he was caught before and any difference between those that have had sex and those that haven't yet in such cases is irrelevant.

You know full well that right wingers have been trying to make the difference to make it seem democrats are worse, look here to see them blame everyone but themselves (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4uFLVjqmI8)
We punish terrorists with the same standard if they manage to carry out their plans or were foiled.

The question is:
Did the Republican leadership (those actually in charge and responsible for running things) do their job?

If the response is "democrats democrats democrats" then the question is being avoided instead of answered.

What democrats, republicans or independents did or did not do in other past cases has no bearing on what someone does now, and does not excuse.
If you think it does then try using it as a defense in court.


On rove. All I did was point out what he admitted to. His own words. He did what he did. Just because the law is written in such a way as to make it almost impossible to convict anyone, or that Fitz decided not to proceed doesn't mean he didn't do what he did.

If you shoot someone and it is decided you didn't mean to do it or that you simply didn't break a law, that doesn't mean that you didn't shoot someone.

[Tempestv]

This says Hastert knew about Foley going after male pages three years ago (http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061005/NEWS01/610050393/1008)

If so, this is a pretty big screwup

[JPaul]

the artcle didn't actually say he fucked anyone.

Doesn't matter.

What matters is, the identified case involved a 16-year-old; proof of a sex act is not necessary.



On the assumption that the 16 year old was below the age of consent. If he was allowed to consent to sexual intercourse then the other chap is guilty of no more than being a pest and cries of paedophile are inappropriate. If the 16 year old is under the age of consent that's a different matter.

Oh and like I said before I think the reaction would be entirely different if the 50 year old was a Woman.

[Tempestv]

I am pretty sure that this kid came from Louisiana, where the age of consent is 17, so he was underage. I have read that Florida officials are looking into criminal charges. besides the fact that this guy has been doing this for a long time, to who knows how many kids. there are always going to be people like this guy around, and it's a shock find out about them, but I don't think that's the real issue here. the real issue is that there were people that knew about this kind of stuff going on long before now, and only now is anything being done about it.





Oh and like I said before I think the reaction would be entirely different if the 50 year old was a Woman.

I don't know if it would be as big a story. legally and morally it wouldn't make much difference, at least to me, but considering the republican stance on homosexuality, it does make it a bigger story for the press.

[JPaul]

Obviously if actual sexual intercourse takes place it is fairly easy to establish which state laws apply. However in instances like this which State's law would take precedence. The one where the e-mail was written or the one in which it was received.

[GepperRankins]

k, tipsy rant time.

almost all boys know the ins and outs of teh sex by 16. almost all are well into puberty. as far as it being child molestation or potential child molestation. pish until evidence surfaces that suggests that there was some expoitaltion of children. the age of consent is a law based on what a few of people decided was a year or two after where the majority of people can act responsibly.

if it was a 16 year old girl he'd talked to, i reckon he'd only be labelled a dirty old man. if foley was a woman i doubt this would have even come up at all.


there was more but my vision is blurring *dabs

[j2k4]

The comparison with what the sickos say on to catch a predator (obviously a lie given the beer etc.) was made because of the question about the context with Stubbs (the other two have no bearing whatsoever). Stubbs did have sex, Foley apparently didn't. So I simply pointed out that it's lucky he was caught before and any difference between those that have had sex and those that haven't yet in such cases is irrelevant.

You know full well that right wingers have been trying to make the difference to make it seem democrats are worse, look here to see them blame everyone but themselves (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4uFLVjqmI8)
We punish terrorists with the same standard if they manage to carry out their plans or were foiled.

The question is:
Did the Republican leadership (those actually in charge and responsible for running things) do their job?

If the response is "democrats democrats democrats" then the question is being avoided instead of answered.

What democrats, republicans or independents did or did not do in other past cases has no bearing on what someone does now, and does not excuse.
If you think it does then try using it as a defense in court.


On rove. All I did was point out what he admitted to. His own words. He did what he did. Just because the law is written in such a way as to make it almost impossible to convict anyone, or that Fitz decided not to proceed doesn't mean he didn't do what he did.

If you shoot someone and it is decided you didn't mean to do it or that you simply didn't break a law, that doesn't mean that you didn't shoot someone.


Point being, we can think what we want about the ultimate disposition of this case, but as to the attending debate such verbal riffing adds nothing to what we should be doing here.

The pols and pundits can and must bang on about tangential inanities as they have to satisfy the demand of the 24-hour news-nets.

We can and will get into the political end of it here, but it seems a bit idiotic to be talking past each other as the talking heads do during their yelling matches.

You make the point that any politician with guilty prior knowledge ought to answer in some way for failing to come forward so as to forestall bad events.

I fully and openly concur.

Then, while the blame-game continues, it arises that some Democrats also had knowledge of Foley's peccadilloes, but also failed to come forward, and so obviously bear some guilt as well.

Is it worth mentioning?

I think so.

Is it worth your acknowledgement?

Again, I think so.

So, to capsulize:

Is it proper to recognize, condemn, and punish Foley's acts?

Without doubt.

Is it likewise proper to investigate and punish any who failed to press the issue into the open given prior suspicion/knowledge?

Absolutely.

Does the above stipulation apply to members of an opposition party during election season?

It would seem not...


In any case, why should the discussion be closed to any events which provide context?

Example:

Tomorrow, Ted Kennedy decides he wants to run for POTUS.

Do we overlook Chappaquiddick?

Joe Biden is once again considering a run...are we to forget the incident of plagerism which aborted his run in '88?

George Allen called an opposition candidate's functionary a "macaca".

For this he foregoes my vote in perpetuity.

Robert Byrd spent most of the first half of his long life as a member-in-good-standing of the Ku Klux Klan, and, if I remember correctly, voted against the Civil Rights Act in the '60s, yet was never subject to any sort of media or public rehabilitation.

He is beloved by Democrats to this day.

Strange, huh?

Or maybe not; I guess it depends on where you stand.

[JPaul]

Is it possible that Democrats knew about this. Surely had they done so then they would have jumped at the chance of making it public knowledge.

[GepperRankins]

republicans should have just said what i said then been like "what?"

[vidcc]

Which democratic congressmen knew about it?
Perhaps you are thinking of the "evidence" presented by the talking heads that this is all just a democratic smear campaign....obviously Foley's behavior is of no concern...this is just a political smear.

Perhaps you are talking about Crew.

Well what did they do? They handed what they knew over to the FBI to look into it. Was that wrong? perhaps they should have gone public with it then...oh hold on...What if they got it wrong and there was nothing behind it?
Should they have not told the FBI and instead trusted the republicans to investigate? Well excuse me but with all the scandals going on just how many have they looked into?

I will acknowledge that democratic lawmakers may have been given advance warning that this is coming, but so what?

[JPaul]

Don't the FBI only deal wth Federal matters. I understood that this was a gross misdemeanor and subject to State law.

Sorry if I got that totally wrong, again. You'll understand how we chaps don't really understand the different layers of your judiciary and law enforcement.

[JPaul]

There's a Federal age of consent apparently


In the United States, the federal age of consent is 16. But in Texas children can marry as young as 14 provided they have the agreement of parents and a judge.

From the BBC.

[vidcc]

Don't the FBI only deal wth Federal matters. I understood that this was a gross misdemeanor and subject to State law.

Sorry if I got that totally wrong, again. You'll understand how we chaps don't really understand the different layers of your judiciary and law enforcement.
It depends on if there are any applicable federal laws involved. Someone mentioned a federal enticement law.

It is possible that foley broke no laws, but in public life that makes it no less of a scandal.

[GepperRankins]

Don't the FBI only deal wth Federal matters. I understood that this was a gross misdemeanor and subject to State law.

Sorry if I got that totally wrong, again. You'll understand how we chaps don't really understand the different layers of your judiciary and law enforcement.
It depends on if there are any applicable federal laws involved. Someone mentioned a federal enticement law.

It is possible that foley broke no laws, but in public life that makes it no less of a scandal.
we should be honest about the scandal. it's because he's gay, not because he's a pedophile

[Busyman™]

According to the CREW posting, the boy e-mailed a colleague in Alexander's office about Foley's e-mails, saying, "This freaked me out." On the request for a photo, the boy repeated the word "sick" 13 times.

it doesn't sound like this kid was exactly consenting, which raises this to a whole new level.

@busy, any idea what the actual text of the rules concerning this are? and I thought the law on un married fornication was good too

Damn I missed this.

I was joshing around about the age of consent (my mom was married at 16 in DC) but that fornication law is suspect.

Hell, the fornication law might be old (super old) and the consent law could have been changed for all I know. There are fellas in my crew that know consent law like the back of their hands (horny bastards).

The proper term for Foley would be an ephebophile, I guess.

[JPaul]

Don't the FBI only deal wth Federal matters. I understood that this was a gross misdemeanor and subject to State law.

Sorry if I got that totally wrong, again. You'll understand how we chaps don't really understand the different layers of your judiciary and law enforcement.
It depends on if there are any applicable federal laws involved. Someone mentioned a federal enticement law.

It is possible that foley broke no laws, but in public life that makes it no less of a scandal.
Thanks for that.

[Biggles]

If the Republicans have a bit of a bad day at the office in the November elections at least they have scapegoats and scoundrels to vilify and pillory.

A lynching and hanging will at least give them an opportunity to make good with their electoral base :shifty:

[JPaul]

What you have then is a seriously bizarre situation.

The US has a Federal age of consent of 16. Most states have an age of consent of 16. So if they had consentual sex in most places in the US, not a problem. However this man is being demonised for sending e-mails. Which, from what I've seen aren't actually that risque.

Do you see how that looks a bit strange to someone looking in.

[JPaul]

If the Republicans have a bit of a bad day at the office in the November elections at least they have scapegoats and scoundrels to vilify and pillory.

A lynching and hanging will at least give them an opportunity to make good with their electoral base :shifty:

Or, they have already decided that they can't win anyway so are taking the opportunity to "clean house". Best to wash their own smalls, rather than leaving them for others to find.

[Biggles]

If the Republicans have a bit of a bad day at the office in the November elections at least they have scapegoats and scoundrels to vilify and pillory.

A lynching and hanging will at least give them an opportunity to make good with their electoral base :shifty:

Or, they have already decided that they can't win anyway so are taking the opportunity to "clean house". Best to wash their own smalls, rather than leaving them for others to find.

Tsk :ermm: are you suggesting that politicos are cynical?

[Tempestv]

From what I can tell, this kid was not responding to this creep. he thought that what this guy was doing was sick and wanted no part in it. I'd be willing to bet that he broke some kind of law in the instance that has been reported, although it sounds like the family isn't willing to press charges for privacy reasons. however, it sounds like he has done this kind of thing more than a few times over at least three years, and I would hope that some law enforcement of some kind invesigates the other times he has done this. From the sound of things, this is going to happen.

My other question is how did this guy get away with this for so long, particularly when from what I have read, several others knew what he was doing.

Finally, I want to know how the demecratic party was to blaime for this when from the sound of it, everyone involved was republican, including the guy that broke the story to the hill.

and no, my position would not change if the sexes of the adult or kid were different

[Biggles]

What has it got to do with the Democrats? I thought they were likely to be the beneficiaries of this embarrassment. All they have to do is say little and looked slightly shocked (not easy for a politician to do either I know).

[JPaul]

What has it got to do with the Democrats? I thought they were likely to be the beneficiaries of this embarrassment. All they have to do is say little and looked slightly shocked (not easy for a politician to do either I know).

The opportunities for righteous indignation are fantastic. The Democrats and the homophobes must be dancing a dance of joy. In a bizarre twist the homosexuals must also be having a good larf about the whole thing.

The liberals must be a wee bit pissed off tho'.

[Tempestv]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7488485/
Unfortunatly, the Republicans are treating this as a political matter- what has to be done to preserve Republican support, not what has to be done to punish those responsable for allowing this to happen and to do what has to be done to make sure that nothing like this happens again. and apparently, the proper method for ignoring the problem is to blame everything on the demecrats.

[Biggles]

What has it got to do with the Democrats? I thought they were likely to be the beneficiaries of this embarrassment. All they have to do is say little and looked slightly shocked (not easy for a politician to do either I know).

The opportunities for righteous indignation are fantastic. The Democrats and the homophobes must be dancing a dance of joy. In a bizarre twist the homosexuals must also be having a good larf about the whole thing.

The liberals must be a wee bit pissed off tho'.

In a "Yeah :01: .....:ermm: oh bugger" sort of way it must be a delicate line for them to tread.

Old Greenboro Baptist will be getting their placards out. I see they were prevailed upon to not protest about homosexualists at the little Amish girls funerals today so they will be all raring to go.

[Biggles]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7488485/
Unfortunatly, the Republicans are treating this as a political matter- what has to be done to preserve Republican support, not what has to be done to punish those responsable for allowing this to happen and to do what has to be done to make sure that nothing like this happens again. and apparently, the proper method for ignoring the problem is to blame everything on the demecrats.

Now call me a foreign git but I can't see how that could pissibly work. If one of Tony Blair's chaps misbehaved they might kick him out but no one would believe it was "all the Tories fault". Unless the average American does not know which party most politicians belong to I can't see how they would buy into a "it was all the other lots fault" argument. :blink:

[JPaul]

The opportunities for righteous indignation are fantastic. The Democrats and the homophobes must be dancing a dance of joy. In a bizarre twist the homosexuals must also be having a good larf about the whole thing.

The liberals must be a wee bit pissed off tho'.
I see they were prevailed upon to not protest about homosexualists at the little Amish girls funerals today so they will be all raring to go.

I've warned you about splitting infinitives before.

Also girls', if you don't mind.

Standards and so fourth.

[Biggles]

I see they were prevailed upon to not protest about homosexualists at the little Amish girls funerals today so they will be all raring to go.

I've warned you about splitting infinitives before.

Also girls', if you don't mind.

Standards and so fourth.

Apogolies

:ermm:

I seem to have a random split infinitive generator built in. No excuse for the dropped apostrophe though - very shoddy.

[Tempestv]

Now call me a foreign git but I can't see how that could pissibly work. If one of Tony Blair's chaps misbehaved they might kick him out but no one would believe it was "all the Tories fault". Unless the average American does not know which party most politicians belong to I can't see how they would buy into a "it was all the other lots fault" argument. :blink:

I have a pretty hard time with it as well, but what can you expect from the republican party these days- Logic?