What an incredible asshole...

[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
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.