...this guy is.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216699,00.html
A couple others ought to go with him, I think.
Printable View
...this guy is.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216699,00.html
A couple others ought to go with him, I think.
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.
I think this is one of the rare times we agree totally.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Those that knew yet did nothing should not only resign but IMO should face aiding and abetting charges.
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.
This title of this thread is gay. j2 musta been mesmerized.
I've been given to understand assholes will do that. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
That's one messy screenshot, Bob :unsure:Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Its the old hands. No control over them.:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnYThat's one messy screenshot, Bob :unsure:Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Heh, ok.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™Ok a question for anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Why do women and men have separate barracks and bathrooms?
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboabHave 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Anything put in the tea would be negated by a naked woman walking aroung your bed area.:lol:
I would imagine so. They put Bromide in our tea about 50 years ago. It is starting to work now.:(Quote:
Originally Posted by BusymanSo it's to prohibit consentual sex?Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Does anybody buy this "they were afraid of being called homophobic" escuse for inaction from the house leadership?
Then why not a separation for gay men and women. 4 separate groups.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboabI would imagine so. They put Bromide in our tea about 50 years ago. It is starting to work now.:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Bull:shit:Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
It's friggin' pedophilia not two consenting adults. Who's claiming this crap?
The only way you could do it is:Quote:
Originally Posted by BusymanThen why not a separation for gay men and women. 4 separate groups.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
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:
: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
hell, you might have straights and gays claiming to be bi, just to get a private room. ya, it'd be way to expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa
I first heard it from Newt Gingrich and Tony Perkins. It became the "talking point" with the usual "pundits" following suit.Quote:
Originally Posted by BusymanBull:shit:Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
It's friggin' pedophilia not two consenting adults. Who's claiming this crap?
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.
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.
Here's Kathrine Harris 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"
Ew Ew, I know!Quote:
Originally Posted by vidccI first heard it from Newt Gingrich and Tony Perkins. It became the "talking point" with the usual "pundits" following suit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
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?
Cos they were simply trying protect the Republican congressman. Hell if this didn't come out, they'd have let him run again.:ermm:
Hence the topic starter and thread title.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempestv
From the original source.
What's the age of consent in the USA? Genuine question, I really have no idea.Quote:
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.
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" thenQuote:
Originally Posted by Tempestv
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.
it depends by state.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
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?
Tight hole? :pinch:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempestv
Surely we would have to look at the position in Washington, that's certainly how the article is headed up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempestvit depends by state.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
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?
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).
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
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 17Quote:
Foley asked him how he was doing after Hurricane Katrina and what he wanted for his birthday.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
Indeed, the grey area is between 16 and 18, where the "special relationship" and five year age difference rules apply.
It actually depends who the other person is.Quote:
Originally Posted by BusymanThe age of consent is not 16 in DC....at least not with a person above 20.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempestv
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".
One must wonder if some of you chaps would be so outraged if the 50 year old had been a woman.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempestv