View Full Version : Foley's Follies


S.A.M.
09-30-06, 10:10 AM
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1541195,00.html

Thanks to his previous work against pedophiles, the Florida congressman who sent possibly inappropriate emails to a teenager had little choice but to resign. Now the GOP has yet another vulnerable seat to defend

One of the most troubling parts of the emerging scandal involving former Rep. Mark Foley, is this: he chaired the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children.

Foley carved out a role for himself as a congressional leader on the issue of exploited children, and is credited with authoring important sections of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 which President Bush signed into law this summer.

He worked with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children whose website has pictures of him presenting awards to law enforcement officers and children who survived and or helped bring child predators to justice.

It would be a fascinating psychological study to try and understand how Foley could be both sending such emails to high schoolers while at the same time fighting against child predators. He is like the firefighter who turns out to also be an arsonist.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/09/why_did_foley_k.html


Rep. Foley is currently sitting on a $2.8 million war chest (http://opensecrets.org/races/summary.asp?ID=FL16&Cycle=2006) , much of it left over from a dashed US Senate bid. Typically, that money might go to the NRCC's campaign coffers, to help elect other Republicans.

But if Rep. Foley really wants to show some contrition, he should donate it all to the Center for Missing and Exploited Children. ;)

Baron Max
09-30-06, 10:12 AM
Some people of the world are bad people, some are good people. Ain't no denying human nature.

The world would be a better place if all humans simply disappeared from the Earth.

Baron Max

TW Scott
09-30-06, 10:21 PM
Actually it looks like he was just showing the same kind of worker curiousity any boss shows for his underlings. Taken out of context the statements are easily twisted. However he maybe just the kind of boss who sends you a card on your birthday, has a compnay scrapbook and such. My guess is that he stepped down so quickly becuase he is single and it could be twisted to be even uglier.

S.A.M.
09-30-06, 10:23 PM
Actually it looks like he was just showing the same kind of worker curiousity any boss shows for his underlings. Taken out of context the statements are easily twisted. However he maybe just the kind of boss who sends you a card on your birthday, has a compnay scrapbook and such. My guess is that he stepped down so quickly becuase he is single and it could be twisted to be even uglier.

I don't think telling a sixteen year old that you would like to take off his shirt and shorts count as "curiosity". Not where I come from, at least.

TW Scott
09-30-06, 10:42 PM
Interesting I saw nothing of that in either link you posted. In fact i have seen only excerpts from the e-mails. Either you have information you are withholding or it is information you are fabricating.

S.A.M.
09-30-06, 11:08 PM
Interesting I saw nothing of that in either link you posted. In fact i have seen only excerpts from the e-mails. Either you have information you are withholding or it is information you are fabricating.

Or maybe it is information being shown ad nauseum on the news as released by the Ethics Committee going over the IMs of the former Republican.


Officially, the matter is now in the hands of a House ethics panel charged with deciding whether there should be an investigation. But the lurid details are already being heavily parsed on television and the Internet.

In one message reported by ABC, Foley reportedly inquired of one page, "Do I make you a little horny?" In another message, he asked a page if he were wearing boxers and then urged him to "strip down and get relaxed."

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15649897.htm

(Q)
10-01-06, 08:48 AM
The article would suggest that Foley was set up.

"Foley's resignation brings a new volatility to this fall's midterm campaigns, in which Republicans are trying to fight off a Democratic insurgency to reclaim the House majority after 12 years of GOP rule. Democrats need to pick up 15 seats to take control of the chamber, and Foley's heavily Republican district is now a surprise new opportunity for Democrats."

Vega
10-01-06, 08:51 AM
Some people of the world are bad people, some are good people. Ain't no denying human nature.

The world would be a better place if all humans simply disappeared from the Earth.

Baron Max
correction!, the world would be a better place without bad people!

Baron Max
10-01-06, 09:37 AM
correction!, the world would be a better place without bad people!

"Bad" as defined by whom? And what if others don't agree with that definition and/or ruling? Should they start blowing up and killing innocent women and children in protest?

Baron Max

Baron Max
10-01-06, 09:39 AM
Okay, I give up! Can someone tell me how the senator's email was discovered? I've read several accounts now of this incident, but no one has explained how these emails came into public attention.

Baron Max

hypewaders
10-01-06, 09:55 AM
Like most sex scandals, this one broke with a complaint by someone who did not appreciate a politician's sexual come-on. In this case a 16-year-old complained to hill staffers about Foley's flirts.

What's more unusual to me here is the surprising power of party fealty: Here we have the Baron groping to defend a gay politician who flirts with young men.

Baron Max
10-01-06, 09:57 AM
What's more unusual to me here is the surprising power of party fealty: Here we have the Baron groping to defend a gay politician who flirts with young men.

Huh?? Where in the fuck did you get that idea??? ..pull it out of your asshole?

Baron Max

S.A.M.
10-01-06, 09:57 AM
Okay, I give up! Can someone tell me how the senator's email was discovered? I've read several accounts now of this incident, but no one has explained how these emails came into public attention.

Baron Max

They were apparently published on a website dedicated to tracking sexual predators.


Maybe you read the story Friday morning in The Post. Maybe you heard about it from the other publications and the Web sites that carried the news about five e-mails Foley had sent to a 16-year-old former congressional page. They showed up last Sunday on a Web site dedicated to tracking sexual predators. Wherever you read about it, you probably had the same reaction: This is bad, and there's more coming.

At first, as always, a spokesman for Foley tried to dismiss release of the e-mails as a political smear job. This time, though, the source wasn't the problem; it was the content.

Even if there was nothing illegal about the e-mails between Foley and the page, who now lives in Louisiana, there was everything inappropriate. Foley talked about another boy, whom he described as being in "great shape." Foley asked the 16-year-old boy for a picture. This exchange was the only one in The Post story. As Friday went on, however, there were reports of other e-mails. ABC News confronted Foley about sexually explicit online exchanges, also with underage boys.

By early afternoon, Foley had resigned, saying he was sorry and apologizing to all those whom he had let down. You wonder how someone who surely knows that e-mails are forever believed that he could keep getting away with this.

It's apparently been going on since 2005.


GOP leaders admit their offices have known for months that a Florida Republican congressman was sending inappropriate e-mails to a boy who had worked as a page in the House of Representatives.

The office of House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who earlier said he'd learned about the e-mails only last week, acknowledged that aides referred the matter to the authorities last fall. They said they were only told the messages were "over-friendly."

Rep. Thomas Reynolds, who heads the House Republican election effort, said Saturday he told Hastert months ago about concerns that a fellow Republican lawmaker, Rep. Mark Foley, had sent inappropriate messages to a teenage boy.

Baron Max
10-01-06, 09:58 AM
Ahh, thank you, Sam. I hadn't read that, or anything else that told the details of ...how it was discovered. Thanks,

Baron Max

hypewaders
10-01-06, 10:00 AM
"Huh?? Where in the fuck did you get that idea??? ..pull it out of your asshole?"

By your standard defense: You were questioning the means by which Foley's homosexual sexual affinity for teens became public. I commented on that, because I can't imagine that you would have made even such a fleeting defense, for instance, of Clinton's improprieties. Party fealty.

Baron Max
10-01-06, 10:04 AM
Hype, you're just making blind accusations about me for some reason ...and without any substantiating evidence to back it up.

I asked a simple question because I didn't know how it was discovered .....Sam was kind enough to answer it without making idiotic, personal accusations.

Baron Max

hypewaders
10-01-06, 11:38 AM
I have only accused you of bias, which we all have. It seems to me that you would more readily defend a Republican over a Democrat. That's an unsurprising aside, and not much to get riled up about. Relax.

Baron Max
10-01-06, 12:25 PM
I have only accused you of bias, which we all have. It seems to me that you would more readily defend a Republican over a Democrat. That's an unsurprising aside, and not much to get riled up about. Relax.

I don't know where or how you got the idea that I'm staunchly republican, but it's just not so. In fact, if you lined them up with the democratics, I'd use them both, indiscriminately, for target practice!

I've never voted for republicans or democrats simply because of their party affiliation ....I voted for the person, what he stood for, how he conducted himself, etc. I'm also cautious of all politicians, watching for lies and untruths, because I'm convinced that anyone who wants to be a government official should almost automatically be disqualified from holding office!!

But, Hype, I'm still interested in your comments about the issue of "human rights" and why, if we hold those rights true for all people of the world, why you don't advocate invasion to set all the people free? I mean, if you hold those ideals so highly and so broadly, like for the terrorists, then why not for some of the nice people of the world?

Baron Max

hypewaders
10-01-06, 04:00 PM
"why, if we hold those rights true for all people of the world, why you don't advocate invasion to set all the people free?"

Because it is not feasible, because it would be overwhelmingly resented, and because would foment greater abuses of human rights. If we instead set the best example in setting our own house in order, others will be far more likely to emulate and cooperate with us. Whether they choose to or not gets back to freedom, where force does not intrude. We now return to the topic of the thread.

The Republicans did a masterful job spinning this scandal. But it does help to have a tacit one-party system ruling.

Neildo
10-01-06, 04:09 PM
Okay, I give up! Can someone tell me how the senator's email was discovered? I've read several accounts now of this incident, but no one has explained how these emails came into public attention.

While not the case here, gotta love this day and age where our government tracks our phone calls, internet activities, who and what we say online..

Talk about a double-edged sword when it comes back to haunt the people who advocate those spying techniques. ;)

- N

Baron Max
10-01-06, 06:13 PM
Because it is not feasible, because it would be overwhelmingly resented, and because would foment greater abuses of human rights.

So ...all you're really saying is that sometimes we should hold up the high ideals of "human rights" and sometimes we shouldn't!!! Which, I might add, is NOT what you alluded to earlier ...would you kindly make up your mind???


If we instead set the best example in setting our own house in order, others will be far more likely to emulate and cooperate with us.

But as you've said ...sometimes we should hold those high ideals, and sometimes we shouldn't. What? Are YOU to be the one to decide when and when not?


We now return to the topic of the thread.

Sometimes discussion must take a turn, a detour. You introduced the high ideals of "human rights", now you don't want to defend that very part of your own earlier post! Sorry, but when you use something to "prove" your point, then it's open for discussion to disprove it. ......which I just did! I.e., high ideals are good to use, but only if it helps YOUR point! ...LOL!

Baron Max

Baron Max
10-01-06, 06:16 PM
While not the case here, gotta love this day and age where our government tracks our phone calls, internet activities, who and what we say online..

Talk about a double-edged sword when it comes back to haunt the people who advocate those spying techniques. ;)

...LOL!! Excellent point, Neildo, excellent!

I can't wait for some of the liberal doo-gooders to try to figure that one out! Sorta' puts a major dilemma up in front of their high ideals, don't it? :)

Baron Max

hypewaders
10-01-06, 06:50 PM
Baron Max: "all you're really saying is that sometimes we should hold up the high ideals of "human rights" and sometimes we shouldn't!!!"

" as you've said ...sometimes we should hold those high ideals, and sometimes we shouldn't."

This is off topic. You and I are already discussing the contradiction you are grasping at here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58109).

Baron Max
10-01-06, 06:52 PM
This is off topic. You and I are already discussing the contradiction you are grasping at here.

So ...terrorists are due the "human rights" of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but a duly elected senator of the US is not????? Duh??

Baron Max

Baron Max
10-02-06, 12:22 PM
Just occured to me ....why ain't you rights-lovin', privacy-for-the-citizen liberals not fighting for Foley's rights to email anyone he wants to? I mean, don't y'all want him to have the same rights as the terrorists???

And, by the way, I'm still tryin' to figure out what law he violated?? Y'all know?

And if he didn't violate any law, .....?

Baron Max

spidergoat
10-02-06, 12:57 PM
He has a right to e-mail and PM whomever he wishes, he does not have the right to sexually harass a 16 year-old. He wasn't discovered through wiretaps, but from the boy himself complaining.

The real story here isn't this behavior, as bad as it is. The real story is the Republicans knew about this for 6 months and did nothing, they were waiting until after the election. So much for the party of values.

Baron Max
10-02-06, 01:11 PM
The real story is the Republicans knew about this for 6 months and did nothing, ......

What law did he violate? If people knew about it, what could they have done about it if no law was violated? ...taken away his civil rights? ...throw him into Gitmo prison?

What should they have done, Spider? Perhaps that's the real story instead, huh?

Baron Max

spidergoat
10-02-06, 01:18 PM
''There's been a tremendous upsurge in federal prosecutions involving any kind of Internet sex enticement with children,'' Miami defense attorney Milton Hirsch said, noting that Foley himself has been a ''very vigorous advocate'' for punishing those who commit crimes against children. Foley, he noted, backs minimum mandatory sentences even for first-time offenders.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/15651621.htm

They could also fire him for inappropriate behavior, since the Cons are supposed to be on such moral high ground.

Baron Max
10-02-06, 01:21 PM
So are you advocating that such action be taken against anyone and everyone who "commits such crimes"? Or are you singling out politicians because you're seeking to further your own agenda?

Baron Max

spidergoat
10-02-06, 01:46 PM
I'm wondering about the motivations of a party that would rather keep a sex offender (pedophile) in office than give up that seat. It's particularly ironic, since they tried to prosecute Clinton for having consentual sex with a woman old enough to be that boy's mother.

madanthonywayne
10-02-06, 02:04 PM
I'm wondering about the motivations of a party that would rather keep a sex offender (pedophile) in office than give up that seat. It's particularly ironic, since they tried to prosecute Clinton for having consentual sex with a woman old enough to be that boy's mother.The House Republicans were only aware of the emails, which were merely a bit "over friendly". It's the instant messages where he crossed the line talking about wanting to give massages and whatnot to the sixteen year old. The instant messages were from 2003 their release is what prompted Foley to resign.

spidergoat
10-02-06, 03:14 PM
"over friendly"

I think that was John Wayne Gacy's problem, too.

Buffalo Roam
10-02-06, 03:25 PM
spidergoat, and what does that have to do with what we are discussing? you do have a bad habit of bring up things that are irrelevant to the discussion, is that because you have nothing to say that is relevant, or coherent?

Nickelodeon
10-02-06, 03:31 PM
As long as the kid registered as a Republican once he turned 18 there's no harm done.....

pragmathen
10-02-06, 03:33 PM
Well, if we give the Repubs the benefit of the doubt in this, that they weren't aware of anything lascivious except for overly friendly emails, then the proof is in the pudding--regarding how they choose to handle it. If there's a full-blown investigation into Foley's misconduct and whether it's indicative of a larger ring of offenders, then perhaps this is a good start. If it comes out that they were sitting on it as long as possible, what then? Hopefully it's the former.

Buffalo Roam
10-02-06, 03:52 PM
REP HENRY HYDE (D-Illinois):
Hyde chaired the House Judiciary Committee which impeached President Clinton, and served as the chief prosecutor of President Clinton in the Senate trial. Hyde claims to be the "conscience" of the House, but concealed his own affair and called for an FBI investigation of the source when it was revealed. He claims to champion "family values", but his five-year affair with a married woman named Cherie Snodgrass (pictured) broke up her marriage. Meanwhile, Fred Snodgrass, the jilted husband, told Salon: "These politicians were going on about how he should have been on the Supreme Court, what a great man he is, how we're lucky to have him in Congress in charge of the impeachment case. And all I can think of is here is this man, this hypocrite who broke up my family." Hyde called the affair a "youthful indiscretion," (although he was just about as old as Clinton). He supports the political "death penalty" for President Clinton's affair, but claims a "statute of limitations" for his own.

REP. JOHN YOUNG (D-Tex.):
On June 11, 1976, Colleen Gardner, a former staff secretary to Young, told the New York Times that Young increased her salary after she gave in to his sexual advances. In November, Young, who had run unopposed in the safe Democratic district five consecutive times, was reelected with just 61 percent of the vote. The scandal wouldn't go away, and in 1978 Young was defeated in a Democratic primary runoff.

REP. ALLAN HOWE (D-Utah):
On June 13, 1976, Howe was arrested in Salt Lake City on charges of soliciting two policewomen posing as prostitutes. Howe insisted he was set up and refused to resign. But the Democratic Party distanced itself from his candidacy and he was trounced by his Republican opponent in the November election.

REP. FRED RICHMOND (D-N.Y.):
In April 1978, Richmond was arrested in Washington for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old boy. Richmond apologized for his actions, conceding he "made bad judgments involving my private life." In spite of a Democratic primary opponent's attempts to cash in on the headlines, Richmond easily won renomination and reelection. But his career came to an end four years later when, after pleading guilty to possession of marijuana and tax evasion - and amid allegations that he had his staff procure cocaine for him -- he resigned his seat.

REP. JOHN HINSON (D-Miss.):
On Aug. 8, 1980, during his first reelection bid, Hinson stunned everyone by announcing that in 1976 he had been accused of committing an obscene act at a gay haunt in Virginia. Hinson, married and a strong conservative, added that in 1977 he had survived a fire in a gay D.C. movie theater. He was making the disclosure, he said, because he needed to clear his conscience. But he denied he was a homosexual and refused GOP demands that he resign. Hinson won reelection in a three-way race, with 39 percent of the vote. But three months later, he was arrested on charges of attempted oral sodomy in the restroom of a House office building. He resigned his seat on April 13, 1981.

REP. ROBERT BAUMAN (D-Md.):
On Oct. 3, 1980, Bauman, a leading "pro-family" conservative, pleaded innocent to a charge that he committed oral sodomy on a teenage boy in Washington. Married and the father of four, Bauman conceded that he had been an alcoholic but had been seeking treatment. The news came as a shock to voters of the rural, conservative district, and he lost to a Democrat in November.

REP. DAN CRANE (R-Ill.) and REP. GERRY STUDDS (D-Mass.):
The House ethics committee on July 14, 1983, announced that Crane and Studds had sexual relationships with teenage congressional pages -- Crane with a 17-year-old female in 1980, Studds with a 17-year-old male in 1973. Both admitted the charges that same day, and Studds acknowledged he was gay. The committee voted to reprimand the two, but a back-bench Georgia Republican named Newt Gingrich argued that they should be expelled. The full House voted on July 20 instead to censure the two, the first time that ever happened for sexual misconduct. Crane, married and the father of six, was tearful in his apology to the House, while Studds refused to apologize. Crane's conservative district voted him out in 1984, while the voters in Studds's more liberal district were more forgiving. Studds won reelection in 1984 with 56 percent of the vote, and continued to win until he retired in 1996.

REP. ERNIE KONNYU (D-Calif.):
In August 1987, two former Konnyu aides complained to the San Jose Mercury News that the freshman Republican had sexually harassed them. GOP leaders were unhappy with Konnyu's temperament to begin with, so it took little effort to find candidates who would take him on in the primary. Stanford professor Tom Campbell ousted Konnyu the following June.

SEN. BROCK ADAMS (D-Wash.):
On Sept. 27, 1988, Seattle newspapers reported that Kari Tupper, the daughter of Adams's longtime friends, filed a complaint against the Washington Democrat in July of 1987, charging sexual assault. She claimed she went to Adams's house in March 1987 to get him to end a pattern of harassment, but that he drugged her and assaulted her. Adams denied any sexual assault, saying they only talked about her employment opportunities. Adams continued raising campaign funds and declared for a second term in February of 1992. But two weeks later the Seattle Times reported that eight other women were accusing Adams of sexual molestation over the past 20 years, describing a history of drugging and subsequent rape. Later that day, while still proclaiming his innocence, Adams ended his campaign.

REP. JIM BATES (D-Calif.):
Roll Call quoted former Bates aides in October 1988 saying that the San Diego Democrat made sexual advances toward female staffers. Bates called it a GOP-inspired smear campaign, but also apologized for anything he did that might have seemed inappropriate. The story came too close to Election Day to damage Bates, who won easily. However, the following October the ethics committee sent Bates a "letter of reproval" directing him to make a formal apology to the women who filed the complaint. Although the district was not thought to be hospitable to the GOP, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a former Navy pilot who was once shot down over North Vietnam, ousted Bates in 1990 by fewer than 2,000 votes.

REP. GUS SAVAGE (D-Ill.):
The Washington Post reported on July 19, 1989, that Savage had fondled a Peace Corps volunteer while on an official visit to Zaire. Savage called the story a lie and blamed it on his political enemies and a racist media. (Savage is black.) In January 1990, the House ethics committee decided that the events did occur, but decided against any disciplinary action because Savage wrote a letter to the woman saying he "never intended to offend" her. Savage was reelected in 1990, but finally ousted in the 1992 primary by Mel Reynolds.

REP. BARNEY FRANK (D-Mass.):
In response to a story in the Aug. 25, 1989, Washington Times, Frank confirmed that he hired Steve Gobie, a male prostitute, in 1985 to live with and work for him in his D.C. apartment. But Frank, who is gay, said he fired Gobie in 1987 when he learned he was using the apartment to run a prostitution service. The Boston Globe, among others, called on Frank to resign, but he refused. On July 19, 1990, the ethics committee recommended Frank be reprimanded because he "reflected discredit upon the House" by using his congressional office to fix 33 of Gobie's parking tickets. Attempts to expel or censure Frank failed; instead the House voted 408-18 to reprimand him. The fury in Washington was not shared in Frank's district, where he won reelection in 1990 with 66 percent of the vote, and has won by larger margins ever since.

SEN. DANIEL INOUYE (D-Hawaii):
In October 1992, Republican Senate nominee Rick Reed began running a campaign commercial that included a surreptitiously taped interview with Lenore Kwock, Inouye's hairdresser. Kwock said Inouye had sexually forced himself on her in 1975 and continued a pattern of sexual harassment, even as Kwock continued to cut his hair over the years. Inouye, seeking a sixth term, denied the charges. And Kwock said that by running the commercial, Reed had caused her more pain than Inouye had. Reed was forced to pull the ad, and while many voters took out their anger on the Republican, Inouye was held to 57 percent of the vote - the lowest total of his career. A week later, a female Democratic state legislator announced that she had heard from nine other women who claimed Inouye had sexually harassed them over the past decade. But the women didn't go public with their claims, the local press didn't pursue the story, and the Senate Ethics Committee decided to drop the investigation because the accusers wouldn't participate in an inquiry.

REP MEL REYNOLDS (D-Ill.):
Freshman Reynolds was indicted on Aug. 19, 1994, on charges of having sex with a 16-year-old campaign worker and then pressuring her to lie about it. Reynolds, who is black, denied the charges and said the investigation was racially motivated. The GOP belatedly put up a write-in candidate for November, but Reynolds dispatched him in the overwhelmingly Democratic district with little effort. Reynolds was convicted on Aug. 22, 1995 of 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography, was sentenced to five years in prison, and resigned his seat on October 1.

spidergoat
10-02-06, 05:14 PM
Republican Congressman Mark Foley abruptly resigned from Congress after "sexually explicit" emails surfaced showing him flirting with a 16-year old boy.

Republican executive Randall Casseday of the conservative Washington Times newspaper was arrested for soliciting sex from a 13-year old girl on the internet.

Republican chairman of the Oregon Christian Coalition Lou Beres confessed to molesting a 13-year old girl.

Republican County Constable Larry Dale Floyd was arrested on suspicion of soliciting sex with an 8-year old girl. Floyd has repeatedly won elections for Denton County, Texas, constable.

Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.

Republican Party leader Bobby Stumbo was arrested for having sex with a 5-year old boy.

Republican petition drive manager Tom Randall pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 14, one of them the daughter of an associate in the petition business.

Republican County Chairman Armando Tebano was arrested for sexually molesting a 14-year-old girl.

Republican teacher and former city councilman John Collins pleaded guilty to sexually molesting 13 and 14 year old girls.

Republican campaign worker Mark Seidensticker is a convicted child molester.

Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.

Republican Mayor Tom Adams was arrested for distributing child pornography over the internet.

Republican Mayor John Gosek was arrested on charges of soliciting sex from two 15-year old girls.

Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.

Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.

Republican Committeeman John R. Curtain was charged with molesting a teenage boy and unlawful sexual contact with a minor.

Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.

Republican zoning supervisor, Boy Scout leader and Lutheran church president Dennis L. Rader pleaded guilty to performing a sexual act on an 11-year old girl he murdered.

Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.

Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.

Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.

Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.

Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.

Republican advertising consultant Carey Lee Cramer was sentenced to six years in prison for molesting two 8-year old girls, one of whom appeared in an anti-Gore television commercial.

Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.

Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.

Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.

Republican campaign chairman Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child and was arrested again five years later on the same charge.

Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.

Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.

Republican Judge Ronald C. Kline was placed under house arrest for child molestation and possession of child pornography.

Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.

Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.

Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.

Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.

Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.

Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.

Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl.

Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.

Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.

Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl.

Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.

Republican legislator Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).

Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was found guilty of molesting a 15-year old girl.

Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.

Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.

Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.

Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.

Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.

Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.

Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.

Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.

Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.

Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a "good military man" and "church goer," was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.

Republican campaign worker, police officer and self-proclaimed reverend Steve Aiken was convicted of having sex with two underage girls.

Republican director of the "Young Republican Federation" Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.

Republican president of the New York City Housing Development Corp. Russell Harding pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer.

Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was found guilty of raping a 15-year old girl. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women.

Republican Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the rape of children in Iraqi prisons in order to humiliate their parents into providing information about the anti-American insurgency. See excerpt of one prisoner's report here and his full report here.

http://www.armchairsubversive.com/
(site has links to relevent articles)

spidergoat
10-02-06, 05:20 PM
GOP Staff Warned Pages About Foley in 2001. (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/gop-staff-warned-pages-about-foley-in.html)

Billy T
10-02-06, 05:34 PM
To spidergoat:

I often agree with you, but think your long list of Republican sex related acts is unfair. I am sure, (because sex gets people of all political persuasions into trouble) that an equally long Democrat only list could be constructed.

The fact that the Republican leadership tried to cover it all up is something to be critical of.

I do want thank Foley for my first laugh of the day. I heard a TV "sound bite" of his speech. - The part where he admitted he had a "behavior problem."

Genji
10-02-06, 05:43 PM
Republican Congressman Mark Foley abruptly resigned from Congress after "sexually explicit" emails surfaced showing him flirting with a 16-year old boy.

Republican executive Randall Casseday of the conservative Washington Times newspaper was arrested for soliciting sex from a 13-year old girl on the internet.

Republican chairman of the Oregon Christian Coalition Lou Beres confessed to molesting a 13-year old girl.

Republican County Constable Larry Dale Floyd was arrested on suspicion of soliciting sex with an 8-year old girl. Floyd has repeatedly won elections for Denton County, Texas, constable.

Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.

Republican Party leader Bobby Stumbo was arrested for having sex with a 5-year old boy.

Republican petition drive manager Tom Randall pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 14, one of them the daughter of an associate in the petition business.

Republican County Chairman Armando Tebano was arrested for sexually molesting a 14-year-old girl.

Republican teacher and former city councilman John Collins pleaded guilty to sexually molesting 13 and 14 year old girls.

Republican campaign worker Mark Seidensticker is a convicted child molester.

Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.

Republican Mayor Tom Adams was arrested for distributing child pornography over the internet.

Republican Mayor John Gosek was arrested on charges of soliciting sex from two 15-year old girls.

Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.

Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.

Republican Committeeman John R. Curtain was charged with molesting a teenage boy and unlawful sexual contact with a minor.

Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.

Republican zoning supervisor, Boy Scout leader and Lutheran church president Dennis L. Rader pleaded guilty to performing a sexual act on an 11-year old girl he murdered.

Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.

Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.

Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.

Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.

Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.

Republican advertising consultant Carey Lee Cramer was sentenced to six years in prison for molesting two 8-year old girls, one of whom appeared in an anti-Gore television commercial.

Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.

Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.

Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.

Republican campaign chairman Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child and was arrested again five years later on the same charge.

Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.

Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.

Republican Judge Ronald C. Kline was placed under house arrest for child molestation and possession of child pornography.

Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.

Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.

Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.

Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.

Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.

Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.

Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl.

Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.

Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.

Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl.

Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.

Republican legislator Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).

Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was found guilty of molesting a 15-year old girl.

Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.

Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.

Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.

Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.

Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.

Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.

Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.

Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.

Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.

Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a "good military man" and "church goer," was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.

Republican campaign worker, police officer and self-proclaimed reverend Steve Aiken was convicted of having sex with two underage girls.

Republican director of the "Young Republican Federation" Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.

Republican president of the New York City Housing Development Corp. Russell Harding pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer.

Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was found guilty of raping a 15-year old girl. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women.

Republican Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the rape of children in Iraqi prisons in order to humiliate their parents into providing information about the anti-American insurgency. See excerpt of one prisoner's report here and his full report here.

http://www.armchairsubversive.com/
(site has links to relevent articles)Good Work Spidergoat! Those pervert conservatives have to be kept from our children!!

Baron Max
10-02-06, 06:51 PM
Isn't it interesting that some of the same people who are fight, demanding, that the terrorists at Gitmo be afforded legal rights and "human rights", while at the same time denigrating Senator Foley without giving him those same legal rights under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

Isn't that something that we might term ....hippo-critical ....of y'all?

Baron Max

spidergoat
10-02-06, 06:53 PM
I'm not taking away anyone's rights. I never demanded that he be taken away with no trial and tortured for information that could be used against him by a judge who he never sees.

Baron Max
10-02-06, 06:58 PM
Well, Spider, you and people just like you have obviously "put him on trial" and judged him without even knowing for sure what happened or when. And even now that we know a bit more, the FBI and the Justice Dept can't even figure out whether he even commited a crime. Public pressure (judgement without trial!) has forced him to resign, yet people are still after him and the republicans in congress ....and we don't even know whether he commited a crime!

No, you didn't take away his rights ....just like bullies on the school yard don't take away any of their victim's rights.

Baron Max

Genji
10-02-06, 07:00 PM
Well, Spider, you and people just like you have obviously "put him on trial" and judged him without even knowing for sure what happened or when. And even now that we know a bit more, the FBI and the Justice Dept can't even figure out whether he even commited a crime. Public pressure (judgement without trial!) has forced him to resign, yet people are still after him and the republicans in congress ....and we don't even know whether he commited a crime!

No, you didn't take away his rights ....just like bullies on the school yard don't take away any of their victim's rights.

Baron MaxIMAGINE a prominent DEMOCRAT caught in this same scandal! I sense Der Baron would be in attack mode and demand his execution!

spidergoat
10-02-06, 07:05 PM
He has not denied that he wrote those messages, and it wasn't the first time. I don't know if he committed a crime, either, but it's still very wrong. It's certainly immoral. It wasn't public pressure that forced him to resign, he admitted he has a problem.

Public attitudes are something very different from our legal rights.

Baron Max
10-02-06, 07:06 PM
IMAGINE a prominent DEMOCRAT caught in this same scandal! I sense Der Baron would be in attack mode and demand his execution!

Ain't got nothin' to do with republican or democrat, Genji, .....just answer the points I made instead of resorting to personal attacks, if you please.

Baron Max

Genji
10-02-06, 07:08 PM
Ain't got nothin' to do with republican or democrat, Genji, .....just answer the points I made instead of resorting to personal attacks, if you please.

Baron MaxYou say Foley is being unjustly crucified. I say you would be on Attack Mode if Nancy Pelosi were discovered to have a taste for 16 year old boys, whether tried or not.

Baron Max
10-02-06, 07:10 PM
He has not denied that he wrote those messages, and it wasn't the first time. I don't know if he committed a crime, either, but it's still very wrong. It's certainly immoral.

Very wrong? Why? And by what standards?

Immoral? What did he write in those emails? And is anything written in an email immoral?

Yeah, public pressure is pretty powerful ....and seems to be determining the course of our nation ...which scares the fuck outta' me! Who ever screams the loudest and longest gets to determine the policies of the nation? Wow!

Baron Max

Baron Max
10-02-06, 07:12 PM
You say Foley is being unjustly crucified. I say you would be on Attack Mode if Nancy Pelosi were discovered to have a taste for 16 year old boys, whether tried or not.

Who's Nancy Pelosi??

Or is this just another personal attack against me?? ...'cause you ain't got nothing of substance to say or discuss?

Baron Max

Genji
10-02-06, 07:32 PM
Who's Nancy Pelosi??

Or is this just another personal attack against me?? ...'cause you ain't got nothing of substance to say or discuss?

Baron MaxI'll rephrase :rolleyes: Say a prominent Democrat were discovered to have homo lust for children? The tighty righties here would be in attack mode. But because Foley is a Republican homo child predator alcoholic he deserves the benefit of the doubt and a fair trial.

Baron Max
10-02-06, 07:45 PM
I'll rephrase ... Say a prominent Democrat were discovered to have homo lust for children?

Lust is not against any law that I know.


...because Foley is a Republican homo child predator alcoholic he deserves the benefit of the doubt and a fair trial.

What crime did he commit? And if he didn't commit a crime, then why are you so ready to condemn him? ...just for writing a few emails to someone underage? ...even if they might have been something that you don't like or approve?

Baron Max

madanthonywayne
10-02-06, 07:45 PM
GOP Staff Warned Pages About Foley in 2001. (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/gop-staff-warned-pages-about-foley-in.html)
This story has been repudiated.


"Firstly, as to the ABC "Warned" story, while I may have inadvertently used the word, "warned," in communication, I can assure you it was not intended. The fact of the matter is in an informal situation a supervisor mentioned that Foley was a bit odd or flaky and did not connote by tone or otherwise that he should be avoided.

"Secondly as to talking out in general, . . . I don't think anyone can argue that protecting kids, pages, or whomever from sexual predators is anything but the most important of this whole saga. Nothing comes in front of the safety of the page program, not the page program, a member of congress, no one.

"Thirdly, I have stressed several key points in my contact with media that all situations with Mr. Foley occurred after we had finished our service as pages. That if anything had happed while we were in Washington, it would have been dealt with. That I have full faith and trust that any of the supervisors and staff we worked with would have properly dealt with any situation like the current one. That the page program is one of the most wonderful and educational experiences a youth can have. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/state/content/state/epaper/2006/10/02/1002page.html

madanthonywayne
10-02-06, 07:50 PM
I'll rephrase :rolleyes: Say a prominent Democrat were discovered to have homo lust for children? The tighty righties here would be in attack mode. But because Foley is a Republican homo child predator alcoholic he deserves the benefit of the doubt and a fair trial.
No Republican is defending this "homo child predator alcoholic". He's a scumbag. Couldn't he find any homo's over eighteen to send perverted instant messages to.

How old are you, Genji? Have you looked into the congressional page program?

Genji
10-02-06, 07:54 PM
Lust is not against any law that I know.



What crime did he commit? And if he didn't commit a crime, then why are you so ready to condemn him? ...just for writing a few emails to someone underage? ...even if they might have been something that you don't like or approve?

Baron MaxI agree with the first part: If he were lusty for 16 year old girls there would be chuckles and playful backslapping by his colleagues. Gay men lust for youth the same way so if an overweight, pasty conservative admires the beauty of a teen boy he must resign. That comes from the God Squad that runs and finances the Republican Party. Her constituents hate fags so he committed political suicide by belonging to the Party of God.

2nd Part: If his actions are a-o-k then why the uproar within the Party of God? (GOP) Why did he resign?

Genji
10-02-06, 07:58 PM
No Republican is defending this "homo child predator alcoholic". He's a scumbag. Couldn't he find any homo's over eighteen to send perverted instant messages to.

How old are you, Genji? Have you looked into the congressional page program?Tempting indeed! :eek: But I'm not a rightwing moral crusader like Foley was. I'm not representing a rightwing Christian conservative constituency either. The credibility of the US government isn't on my back either. I'd just have a few male pages wash my car in thongs or something.

Baron Max
10-02-06, 08:00 PM
No Republican is defending this "homo child predator alcoholic". He's a scumbag. Couldn't he find any homo's over eighteen to send perverted instant messages to.

Well, I'm not defending him exactly, but don't we have laws and rules by which we live in this nation? I mean, I'm still trying to find out what law he violated, and what punishment has been designated according to law. I think the FBI and the Justice Dept are trying to figure that out, too.

As I see it from my viewpoint, he's been publically crucified for writing a sexually suggestive email to an underage boy ....but is it a crime? And if it ain't a crime, then.....? Are we now to "crucify" everyone and anyone who writes "dirty, suggestive" emails to people?

In another thread, people are screaming bloody murder that the prisoners of Gitmo are not being afforded their legal rights .....yet here we are publically crucifying a person and NOT giving him his legal rights under the law.

What's the deal? Is it worse to write sexy emails than it is to kill 3,000 people in the Twin Towers and blow up innocnet people all over the world? How does that work exactly? I'm confused.

Baron Max

Genji
10-02-06, 08:08 PM
Well, I'm not defending him exactly, but don't we have laws and rules by which we live in this nation? I mean, I'm still trying to find out what law he violated, and what punishment has been designated according to law. I think the FBI and the Justice Dept are trying to figure that out, too.

As I see it from my viewpoint, he's been publically crucified for writing a sexually suggestive email to an underage boy ....but is it a crime? And if it ain't a crime, then.....? Are we now to "crucify" everyone and anyone who writes "dirty, suggestive" emails to people?

In another thread, people are screaming bloody murder that the prisoners of Gitmo are not being afforded their legal rights .....yet here we are publically crucifying a person and NOT giving him his legal rights under the law.

What's the deal? Is it worse to write sexy emails than it is to kill 3,000 people in the Twin Towers and blow up innocnet people all over the world? How does that work exactly? I'm confused.

Baron MaxFoley is a VICTIM! :( Being CRUCIFIED for legally sexually harassing teenage boys working for government representatives. He should be assigned MORE pages. After all he isn't a terrorist! :rolleyes:

madanthonywayne
10-02-06, 11:23 PM
I'd just have a few male pages wash my car in thongs or something.
Now, wouldn't that be worse than dirty email? Even if it wasn't, it might lead to something that was. But then, as a leftist, the media would give you a pass.

Baron Max
10-03-06, 06:54 AM
It's interesting ...it seems that the media can make people do and say most anything that they want just by making headlines. People seem to follow the lead of the newspapers and news media, and they seem to think that the media can do no wrong!

Maybe we should let the news media run the nations of the world, huh? I mean, they know everything, they understand "good n' bad", "right n' wrong", "moral n' immoral", etc. Let's appoint the news media as our leaders!

Baron Max

S.A.M.
10-03-06, 06:56 AM
Lust is not against any law that I know.



What crime did he commit? And if he didn't commit a crime, then why are you so ready to condemn him? ...just for writing a few emails to someone underage? ...even if they might have been something that you don't like or approve?

Baron Max

Actually if the victim complains, I do believe it falls under sexual harassment.

Do you think he will be arrested if the boy files charges?

Baron Max
10-03-06, 07:01 AM
Actually if the victim complains, I do believe it falls under sexual harassment.

No, it then becomes an ACCUSATION of sexual harassement, not a conviction or a legal judgement. Most have already condemned Foley and all he did, at this time, was to write some "interesting" emails. So I guess "flirting" now via email is a capital offense in this nation? :)

Listen, I don't like shit like that any more than anyone else, but if y'all are going to fight and argue and demand "US legal and human rights" for the terrorists/suspects of Gitmo, then surely you can see that Foley should also have those same rights, can't you???? Or are those rights only for our enemies, and not for our citizens??

Baron Max

S.A.M.
10-03-06, 07:06 AM
No, it then becomes an ACCUSATION of sexual harassement, not a conviction or a legal judgement. Most have already condemned Foley and all he did, at this time, was to write some "interesting" emails. So I guess "flirting" now via email is a capital offense in this nation? :)

Listen, I don't like shit like that any more than anyone else, but if y'all are going to fight and argue and demand "US legal and human rights" for the terrorists/suspects of Gitmo, then surely you can see that Foley should also have those same rights, can't you???? Or are those rights only for our enemies, and not for our citizens??

Baron Max

Ya the joys of public life.

If you are the President and massage the shoulders of a woman, they show it on television.

If you are a black or white moon dancer and you get arrested for possibly diddling a young boy, people watch it on television.

If you are a bearded guy in a cave, you make a video and take responsibility for something across the ocean, people watch it on television.

And they all form judgements.

Baron Max
10-03-06, 07:11 AM
So what are you saying, Sam???? That you agree that Foley should be condemned without a legal hearing? Or that he should be afforded the rights to a trial?

Please explain.

Baron Max

S.A.M.
10-03-06, 07:21 AM
So what are you saying, Sam???? That you agree that Foley should be condemned without a legal hearing? Or that he should be afforded the rights to a trial?

Please explain.

Baron Max

I think Congress should pass a law making sex with minors legal. That way, Foley can even become the next President.

spidergoat
10-03-06, 11:34 AM
E-mails and PMs are available at www.rawstory.com

Baron Max
10-03-06, 12:27 PM
I think Congress should pass a law making sex with minors legal. That way, Foley can even become the next President.

See why it's just pointless to try to have a serious discussion with you?

Baron Max

Baron Max
10-03-06, 12:30 PM
E-mails and PMs are available at www.rawstory.com

I'm not going to read all that shit, Spider ....can't you just tell me if what he did was illegal according to the laws of the USA? And if not, then should he be "crucified" for what he did?

I don't like what I'm hearing about his actions, but should we all be treated like he's being treated for sending a few sexually explicit emails or somesuch perfectly legal, althought stupid, actions? And if not, aren't we all being hippo-critters?

Baron Max

S.A.M.
10-03-06, 12:36 PM
The jury is still out :


Legal experts say it's unclear if former Rep. Mark Foley's explicit Internet conversation with a male teenager who had served as a congressional page could pose a violation of state or federal laws.
The Florida Republican might be liable under tough, new federal prohibitions against sexual predators who use the Internet to contact minors, provisions in the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 that Foley was instrumental in passing, these experts say.
"We've been looking at this, and it's just not clear," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "There are a host of statutes involved."
David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, agreed.
"The question is whether this (Internet exchange) was really an overture. And since the kid apparently was 16, most of the age-of-consent laws will make it impossible for this to be a violation, although that varies from state to state," Finkelhor said.
Foley resigned unexpectedly Friday after ABC News reporters showed him an exchange of instant messages he apparently had with a 16-year-old former House page in 2003.
But even if an older man had consensual sex with a minor — something that has not been alleged in this case — most states' age of consent would allow a sex union between a 52-year-old man and a 16-year-old male.
The new laws against use of the Internet to entice children have added an additional level of uncertainty.
"There are a bunch of new laws against using the Internet," Finkelhor said. "Someone has to go through them to see what is there."
Exactly what Foley has done is unclear. A series of Internet instant messages between the former page and the congressman who used the online name "Maf54" graphically discussed male-to-male sex.
At one point, "Maf54" said he would "love to slip them (the page's T-shirt and shorts) off you" and to grab "the one-eyed snake."
"Not tonight," the page replied. "Don't get to (sic) excited."
The FBI, which confirmed Sunday that it was conducting a preliminary investigation into Foley at the request of the House Republican leadership, will not speculate on what law Foley might or might not have broken.
"Officially, all we are able to say is that we are conducting an assessment or a preliminary investigation to determine if there has been any violation of federal law," said spokesman Stephen Kodak.
He would not say if federal investigators were considering if Foley could have violated the new child protection act.
Foley attended the July 27 White House signing ceremony for the law that was named after the victim of a brutal 1981 child kidnapping and murder in Florida.
"The bill I sign today will make it harder for sex predators to reach our children on the Internet. Some sex predators use this technology to make contact with potential victims," President Bush said then.
The bill created regional Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces to provide funding and training for police and prosecutors to combat "sexual exploitation of minors on the Internet" and strengthened penalties for a variety of crimes against children.

Baron Max
10-03-06, 12:44 PM
The jury is still out...

So ...as I said before, several times, should we be denigrating the man before he's convicted of an illegal act?

And if it's okay to do so, then can we all be held to the same standards? And if not, why not?

The biggest problem with this kind of bullshit is that we turn out backs on the very laws that we pass, and seek to destroy a person with snide, nasty remarks in the press and on the Internet forums. I just don't think it's very nice of us, do y'all?

Baron Max

spidergoat
10-03-06, 12:58 PM
Yes. He was trying to have sex with a 16 year-old. The IM's are now public.

John99
10-03-06, 01:02 PM
Max,

Congressmen are held to a higher standard than say a janitor is, he also screwed over alot of people by merely associating with them given the nature of his actions.

This guy also got on a moral high horse when Clinton reacted to a grownh woman's seduction's...i would say he's finished.

Baron Max
10-03-06, 03:52 PM
Yes. He was trying to have sex with a 16 year-old.

He was? Or he was just talking to the boy? At what point in "talking" does the act of sex come into play?

Baron Max

Baron Max
10-03-06, 03:56 PM
Max, Congressmen are held to a higher standard than say a janitor is, ...

So what ye're saying is that we're all a bunch of fuckin' hippo-crits when we make those philosophical, righteous, moral references to the high-sounding ideals of "created equal under the law", is that it?

Baron Max

vincent
10-03-06, 06:45 PM
I don't think telling a sixteen year old that you would like to take off his shirt and shorts count as "curiosity". Not where I come from, at least.


I have always found in life the moral crusaders who lecture us on alchohol abuse, drug abuse, child abuse, & watching violent tv, these moral crusaders are the real perps, the real perverts behind closed doors, the real drunks, the real fetish kings.

As are human rights lawyers, i have no doubt the very same people would be excellent SS commanders in nazi germany in the forties, unless its to do with nature & love for animals which is genuine in humans, the things in human nature, do gooders embrace as a crusade, is usually the true reverse side of there nature.

Hypocrites do gooders one & all most of the time, give me reality every time warts and all, no one is without sin or crimes.

Betelnut
10-03-06, 06:51 PM
This news gave me a bad case of schadenfreude! I must admit my first reaction was just an evil grin.

Baron:

Strange, you accused me of loving child molesters because I didn't like the idea of torturing accused terrorists. (I know, everyone, it was a strange leap in logic, but consider the source.) Now you are defending a, well, not a child molester, but a child sexual harrasser, I guess you could say. Of course, he is not guilty until proven so. Just like the accused terrorists you have such a hard on about torturing.

Ironic, isn't it? Admit it--it is hypocritical of you to defend Foley.

Actually I agree with you that the Foley situation has been blown up out of proportion a bit. Propositioning someone is not the same as forcing them to disrobe or forcing them to suck your cock, etc.

But it is still slimey and creepy. And very, very stupid. Did the man not realize that TMs and emails don't just get thrown away? And, yes, Baron, it is illegal. Do you have a child? Imagine some old man sending your 15-16 year old child (male or female) these types of messages. You'd be torturing his ass before the day was over.

Michael
10-03-06, 06:58 PM
Oh come on. Are you looking for a legal loophole that will exonerate this ass hole? I just don’t get it?

Is this an argument just to argue?

The guy was a child predator. His email/SMS avow he has pedophilic tendencies. He was in a position of power and these children were in his care.
He’s a sick fucker.
Anyone else who are found to have put the interests of their political career over that of the welfare of children are also fucking sick in the head - they should also resign.

He has admitted he wrote the SMSs so why argue about it? Child predators are the lowest scum of the Earth - It really is that simple.

Michael

vincent
10-03-06, 07:36 PM
Oh come on. Are you looking for a legal loophole that will exonerate this ass hole? I just don’t get it?

Is this an argument just to argue?

Child predators are the lowest scum of the Earth - It really is that simple.

Michael


I disagree with you, terroists are the lowest scum of the earth, with child pervs second, with child pervs its a sickness that only death or pills can cure, with terroists it is not a sickness, its a case of a healthy person allowing others to dictate his thoughts, a child perv has usually no choice or control in this matter, you are not born a terroist, however you can be born a child molestor.

However sick & twisted a child perv is they will usually let the kid live, a terroist as in the case of bagdad last year, when a terroist loony killed 28 kids as US soldiers gave out sweets to them, a terroist dont care whether the kid lives or dies, they see only a cause religous hatred, they never see humanbeings.

Genji
10-03-06, 07:44 PM
Now, wouldn't that be worse than dirty email? Even if it wasn't, it might lead to something that was. But then, as a leftist, the media would give you a pass.Ya think?? Recall Chandra Levy and her politico Democrat lover? Gary Hart? The media had a blast with that. T. Kennedy and his love life & alcoholism? Clinton's blowjob? I'm missing quite a few here. All would be considered "leftists" by a far rightist and each one was crucified by the media. Conservatives are always the 'victim' of something. Whether it's because they think the media picks on them or whatever other mean things people do to them they always have someone to blame for their persecution, even after 7 years of full power, it's always someone else's fault when their true character is exposed for all to see.

pragmathen
10-03-06, 08:11 PM
Genji, truer words could not have been spoken, seeing as how Foley is now "confessing" that he was abused by a clergyman (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061003/ap_on_go_co/congressman_e_mails). Wait, wait, now we know that Baron Min will put all of the blame on the religious right. Hmm, that puts Foley in a dilly of a pickle.

Speaking of the religious right, I wonder what their views on this are...
http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2006/10/religious-right-strangely-silent-about.html

Genji
10-03-06, 08:21 PM
Genji, truer words could not have been spoken, seeing as how Foley is now "confessing" that he was abused by a clergyman (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061003/ap_on_go_co/congressman_e_mails). Wait, wait, now we know that Baron Min will put all of the blame on the religious right. Hmm, that puts Foley in a dilly of a pickle.

Speaking of the religious right, I wonder what their views on this are...
http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2006/10/religious-right-strangely-silent-about.htmlExcellent link! So Jesus hates gay marriage and gay people but he LOVES Christian child stalkers. I wonder how many boys Jesus would sexually harrass? :p

madanthonywayne
10-03-06, 11:23 PM
Actually if the victim complains, I do believe it falls under sexual harassment.

Do you think he will be arrested if the boy files charges?
First of all, the guys a scumbag. But with that said, didn't all this coorespondence occur after the teens left the page program? Doesn't sexual harrassment only apply to employer/employee situations or perhaps teacher/student? Otherwise, it's just a scumbag trolling for teen-age tail, but not sexual harrassment.

Baron Max
10-04-06, 06:39 AM
If we allow the law to be subverted with angry, emotional accusations, why have laws? Why not just have vigilante justice for everyone ...whoever is the most angry, or rants the loudest, is permitted to hang or crucify the accused?

Most of y'all have recently screamed and yelled and demanded the "equal rights under the law" for the terrorists at Gitmo, yet here ye're actually calling for Foley's punishment without any benefit to those same "equal rights under the law". Correct me if I'm wrong, but ain't that being a fuckin' hippo-crite?

Again, under the law, which we pretend to hold so dear, what law did Foley violate?

Baron Max

Baron Max
10-04-06, 07:09 AM
Baron: .... Now you are defending a, well, not a child molester, but a child sexual harrasser, I guess you could say. Of course, he is not guilty until proven so. Just like the accused terrorists you have such a hard on about torturing.

Terrorists and terrorist suspects are NOT citizens of the US!! That's a big, big difference ...US laws are for US citizens.

I'm not defending Foley or his actions, I'm defending his rights under the law. If y'all can't see that, then there's something bad, bad wrong with you.

Or would you have us replace the law with vigilante justice? Because that's what most of y'all seem to be indicating by your vengeful posts.

Baron Max

Buffalo Roam
10-04-06, 08:51 AM
Baron Max, most of these people are baby's they want what they want when they want it, to their specifications and prejudice, they want the law flexible to fit the need of the moment to back their prejudice, and consistency be dammed, they want the law to be as fixable as the rope they use in their lynching, to be used to allow their vigilante idea of justice, you can see this in their defense of Terrorist, as they want to flex the law's of the U.S. to cover terrorist, and ignore the Laws of the Military which are the domain of jurisdiction for these people, yes they are the perversion of Vigilante, no true justice.

spidergoat
10-04-06, 09:59 AM
I'm not a judge or lawyer, but Foley has possibly broken a law that he helped write regarding soliciting sex from minors. I'm not condemning him for the law, but for his immoral behavior. It doesn't take a judge to see that. Lying isn't illegal in most cases, either, but I would condemn someone for that too. Foley e-mails and PM's are not in dispute, and his reputation seems to have been known among some Republicans for some time.

Neildo
10-04-06, 11:10 AM
Excellent link! So Jesus hates gay marriage and gay people but he LOVES Christian child stalkers. I wonder how many boys Jesus would sexually harrass?

Well, Jesus did have a lil' foot fetish, always liking to rub and wash their apostles feet. And he was, afterall, betrayed by a kiss. ;)


Most of y'all have recently screamed and yelled and demanded the "equal rights under the law" for the terrorists at Gitmo, yet here ye're actually calling for Foley's punishment without any benefit to those same "equal rights under the law". Correct me if I'm wrong, but ain't that being a fuckin' hippo-crite?

Justice will happen. Just because we're talking about the issues doesn't mean he's going to be hung without trial. We're merely talking about the issue as we do with every freakin' event that happens in life! Humans are natural social gossip queens.

The huge difference in this case though is that the guy admitted to what he was doing. Not only that, but he was the head guy that combats this type of behaviour. I'd say he's screwed. Now hey, that doesn't mean he will be as that's just my high probability opinion, because afterall, we all love drama.

- N

spidergoat
10-04-06, 04:25 PM
Report: Hastert's office warned about Foley 3 years ago (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/04/foley.ap/index.html)

spidergoat
10-04-06, 06:29 PM
Can you believe Fox labeled him a democrat ... twice?
http://static.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/Foley-BO-Dem.jpg

Un-freaking-believable.

Baron Max
10-04-06, 06:42 PM
Well, I just heard on the evening news that neither the Justice Dept or the FBI can figure out what crime Foley has committed.

And yet, in the media and here at sciforums, he's been crucified. Interesting, ain't it? In a nation that prides itself on our system of law and justice, and we happily go on resorting to vigilante justice .....even as we make silly-assed excuses for doing it.

I'm not sure, but I think I'm pretty damned ashamed of how the news and some of y'all are talking ......and especially when some/most of y'all put up great arguments for giving the terrorists their "civil rights under the law". Can any of y'all spell "hippo-fuckin'-crit"?

Baron Max

spidergoat
10-04-06, 06:47 PM
Can you explain how that matters? Is it OK to have a congressman hitting on 16 year old pages? ...and use alcohol as an excuse?

Besides, the investigation has not even started.

Genji
10-04-06, 06:59 PM
Republicans can be child stalkers, I think Jesus allows this. Everyone else is prosecuted for sexually harrassing and stalking children. THAT part is in the bible.

Baron Max
10-04-06, 07:06 PM
Can you explain how that matters?

Sure ..because under our system of justice and law, people of the USA are innocent until proven guilty. And isn't that what you erroneously tried to argue about the prisoners at Gitmo? So why have you changed your mind about that issue ....or is it only the Gitmo prisoners that you care about ...and anyone else can go fly a kite?


Is it OK to have a congressman hitting on 16 year old pages? ...and use alcohol as an excuse?

I don't like it, Spider, but I also don't like the billions of porno websites on the Internet or the prevalence of prostitution and drugs on our streets. But it's not what I like or dislike, Spider, it's what the law of the land is ...not my own or your own vigilante justice. Or is that what you want?


Besides, the investigation has not even started.

They've been working on that since Friday ....so with the legal experts at Justice and the FBI, you'd think that they'd have at least the possible crime that he's committed, wouldn't you?

Baron Max

Baron Max
10-04-06, 07:07 PM
Everyone else is prosecuted for sexually harrassing and stalking children.

Oh, really???? And can you name any of those great and wonderous cases to which you allude? Please?

Baron Max

Genji
10-04-06, 07:09 PM
I said it before but can you all IMAGINE if a DEMOCRAT was the one lusting for same sex teens!!! :eek: Mother of God the Puritan Party would be on a jihad!! Calls for his castration would be announced by that fat guy that sits with Colmes! Ann Coulter and GW would urge GITMO as punishment!! Astonishing the brazen hypocrisy coming from the Party of God.

Michael
10-04-06, 07:10 PM
Did Clinton commit a crime by having Monica suck him off?
I didn't think he was charged with a crime?
Was he?
Regardless, it was still wrong of him wasn't it?
And that was two consenting adults.
At that time the Republicans went ape shit. As a matter of fact they ran their election campaign on the premise they were going to bring dignity and trustworthiness back to the Government.


Now we have a Republican Congressman who has admitted to trying to persuade a child, a child in his care, to suck him off and now it's simply naughty emails.

Talk about hypocrites.

As to the Guantanamo Bay inmates - the problem I have is simply with the WH trying to contravene the Geneva Conventions on Torture - a document that we helped write.

Regardless, I fail to see the hypocrisy?
Are we suggesting that Foley be tortured and the Inmates sent free?
No we are not.
So there is no hypocrisy.
Lets stop with the Red Herring already.

It's really quite simple. We think that Foley, along with anyone who covered for him (while he tried to get young male children working for him to suck his cock) step-down - simply on principal.

I don’t know about you but I certainly don’t want those types of people running our government. Do you? If they are more than happy to overlook something this dastardly, something no one here disagrees as sick, perverted and horribly-wrong, then what else are these types of people willing to do to stay in power?

As simple as that - they should step-down.

Genji
10-04-06, 07:12 PM
Oh, really???? And can you name any of those great and wonderous cases to which you allude? Please?

Baron MaxSo you think sexually harrassing minors and stalking minors is an everyday legal thing that is no big deal?? NAMES!! Are you shitting me!! Go to www.thekansascitychannel.com and find some yourself. This stuff is all over the news. Stings luring perverts to children (undercover officers) etc. Wow Der Baron, you are quite the Sicko!! :bugeye:

Baron Max
10-04-06, 07:13 PM
I said it before but can you all IMAGINE if a DEMOCRAT was the one......

Genji, it ain't got nothin' to do with Democrat or Republican. So quite trying to make it into a political bullshit argument!

Did he commit a crime or not?! Please answer the fuckin' question or quit interjecting bullshit propaganda crap!

Baron Max

Baron Max
10-04-06, 07:20 PM
Did Clinton commit a crime by having Monica suck him off?
I didn't think he was charged with a crime? Was he?

Oh, god, you're so fucked up and ill-informed that it pains me to even respond!! Clinton was NOT charged with get Monica to suck him off, he was charge with lying to a grand jury .....and aquitted! And that's the way it should be ...according to the laws of the land.


Regardless, it was still wrong of him wasn't it?

Haveing Monica suck his dick was not "wrong" according to the law! Was it wrong according to your sick, selfish ideals? Probably ...but who gives a shit about you?


...but I certainly don’t want those types of people running our government.

I don't either, but where YOU seem to want vigilante justice, I want justice according to the law. There's a big, big difference.

I'd also say that Foley was duly elected to the congress by the people of his district ...don't you think that they should have more say in it than you?

Baron Max

Genji
10-04-06, 07:36 PM
Genji, it ain't got nothin' to do with Democrat or Republican. So quite trying to make it into a political bullshit argument!

Did he commit a crime or not?! Please answer the fuckin' question or quit interjecting bullshit propaganda crap!

Baron MaxI would be shocked if it's legal for adults to sexually harrass minors. The real crime here is the RNC coverup. Hastert is goin down my brotha!

Baron Max
10-04-06, 07:40 PM
I don't want to talk to you any more, Genji, you're being totally ignorant.

I do, however, applaud your ideals that seem to think vigilante justice is good. The Muslim terrorists think like that, too.

Baron Max

Genji
10-04-06, 07:42 PM
I don't want to talk to you any more, Genji, you're being totally ignorant.

I do, however, applaud your ideals that seem to think vigilante justice is good. The Muslim terrorists think like that, too.

Baron MaxBut Der Baron! :( What shall I do without your little turds of wisdom each day! :confused: Please don't leave me Der Baron!

S.A.M.
10-04-06, 07:43 PM
your little turds of wisdom

Reminds me of South Park.

Michael
10-04-06, 07:58 PM
was not "wrong" according to the law! OK we can agree that there is "The Law" and that one shouldn't do something against "The Law" so as not to be charged with a "Crime".


Was it wrong according to your sick, selfish ideals? Probably ...but who gives a shit about you?To answer your question: Yes because there was, according to my ideals, an abuse of power to gain sexual gratification. I don't like it when my servants use the power I have entrusted them with to do something other than serve the USA. Like trying to get blowjobs when they should be working for example.


Anyway, following the Law is a minimum bases for electing our servants/representatives agreed??? One would expect that Law abiding as a given to work huh??? That then said I think we can agree that we elect our representatives to represent our ideals. Surely they should try to do this? That should be 99% of governing huh???

I, as citizen, think that a Law abiding USA Representative who covers up the actions of a Law-abiding pedophile (who has a penchant for viewing little boys at the pool) and looks the other way while said Pedophile sends "naughty emails" to pool-boys and other male children in the hopes of lining up a blowjob – well they would step-down.

I only hope my fellow citizens in Florida agree.

I also find it disconcerting that they were more than happy to look-the-other-way while this Law abiding pedophile sat on a committee that writes the Laws that govern what is and is not Lawful behavior in regards to sexual acts towards children. Again, I should hope my fellow citizens in Florida would agree.

Lastly I would not have a problem with ex-Senator Foley having a relationship or just one off sex with adult men, women or transgenders (so long as they were not under his direct supervision).

The point here is that ex-Senator Foley was attempting to solicit sex from a child, and even worse - one under his direct care. Those who knew of his inappropriate behavior should resign.

I only hope my fellow citizens in Florida agree.

Then again, do you Baron Max find it inappropriate for a Pedophile to solicit sex from children under their care?

Do you find it inappropriate for those who knew ex-Senator Foley was attempting to solicit sex from children and did nothing about it as negligent in the duties as servants to our republic?

Maybe therein lies the rub?

Michael

Genji
10-04-06, 08:03 PM
Der Baron must think it's OK for men to lust for minor boys and sexually harrass them. Not quite a conservative position! Never thought of Baron as a pro-gay, pro sexual harrassing minors type. I bet he's a NAMBLA member too! WAIT till boys come out and report being molested by this pervert. The Repubs are burning on this one. I can't stop smiling!

Baron Max
10-04-06, 08:10 PM
Then again, do you Baron Max find it inappropriate for...

First, there's two issues ...the law and proper justice. Then there's the ideals of morality. You've stated that you understand the law, I think, but morality is an entirely different issue. And whether you and I agree is also not at issue.

Let me ask you something; if a bunch of friends and I found someone doing something that we thought was "inappropriate", would you agree that we should tar and feather him and run him out of town????? Please try to put this issue in simple terms and see how far you'd let us go. And, worse, Michael, what if you didn't agree with us that it was "immoral" behavior????


Do you find it inappropriate for those who knew ex-Senator Foley was attempting to solicit sex from children and did nothing about it as negligent in the duties as servants to our republic?

I'm not so sure, Michael, how well our congressmen can legislate and control "morality", do you? Would you like the government to begin passing laws agaisnt things that they thought were "immoral"? Think about that one, Michael, before you jump to answer it.

Baron Max

Buffalo Roam
10-04-06, 08:43 PM
Michael, and if as it appears that Democrats knew about this for 3 years, should they also pay the price? In the past they protected Gerry Studds, one of their own from being thrown out of the house and reduced it to a censure, and as the House read their censure of him, Studds turned his back on the speaker and members in the chamber and ignored them. Later, at a press conference with the former page standing beside him, the two stated that what had happened between them was nobody's business but their own, so did the democrats ever force him to resign?, did he have the integrity to resign himself?, did the leadership of the democrats resign, even though they knew about his pedophilia? as for democrat can you say hypocrites?

Genji
10-04-06, 08:47 PM
Michael, and if as it appears that Democrats knew about this for 3 years, should they also pay the price? In the past they protected Gerry Studds, one of their own from being thrown out of the house and reduced it to a censure, and as the House read their censure of him, Studds turned his back on the speaker and members in the chamber and ignored them. Later, at a press conference with the former page standing beside him, the two stated that what had happened between them was nobody's business but their own, so did the democrats ever force him to resign?, did he have the integrity to resign himself?, did the leadership of the democrats resign, even though they knew about his pedophilia? as for democrat can you say hypocrites?Of course the Dems are hypocrits. But the story of the day is a REPUBLICAN was a very bad boy. The speaker of the house is about to RESIGN! The Christian Right is even distancing themselves from the scandal. It's October of 2006, the story is a Republican was caught sexually harrassing teen boys. A HOMO Republican at that! The RNC has power over the land, in all branches, this isn't the Dems fault. Time to take some knocks. The Party of God is indeed flawed. Can the Right do nothing but point at Democrats?? Is this disgusting scandal Clinton's fault too? Time for the Right to take responsibility.

Buffalo Roam
10-04-06, 08:58 PM
And this is what other Liberal democrats want for your children,

Other nuggets abound. For example, Ginsburg recommended that the age of consent for purposes of statutory rape be lowered from 16 to 12. [See pages 69-71 and the specific recommendation regarding 18 U.S.C. § 2032 on page 76.]

Other nuggets abound. For example, Ginsburg recommended that the age of consent for purposes of statutory rape be lowered from 16 to 12. [See pages 69-71 and the specific recommendation regarding 18 U.S.C. § 2032 on page 76.]

http://volokh.com/posts/1104181917.shtml

To my surprise, the allegation seems largely accurate, though in the limited context of the federal territorial and maritime jurisdiction. (The report was referring only to federal law, and most sex crimes are covered by state law rather than federal law.) The report was Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, and it was prepared for the Commission by former ACLU lawyer Brenda Feigen-Fasteau, then-professor Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and 15 Columbia Law School students working under their supervision.

But here's the suggestion on p. 102:

18 U.S.C. §2032 — Eliminate the phrase "carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years" and substitute a Federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense patterned after S. 1400 §1633: A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.

Under this proposal, it seems to me that sex with 12-year-olds and older would be legalized in the federal territorial and maritime jurisdiction, regardless of the age of the other party. This wouldn't be a "Romeo-and-Juliet" law aimed at preventing prosecution of young lovers — it would equally be a dirty-old-man-and-Juliet law. And while there are plausible debates about what the age of consent should be, it seems to me that simply lowering it to 12 would be quite a striking and unjustified change.

Buffalo Roam
10-04-06, 09:05 PM
We do and if he hadn't resigned we would have forced him from office, unlike the Democrats who stood behind the Studds, Barny Franks, Bill Clinton, and a hundred others in their party, they tell us that we have no right to demand that when their leadership is caught in a scandal to demand that they resign, but how come ever time they yell scandal they try to tell the Republican leadership they have to resign?

madanthonywayne
10-04-06, 09:22 PM
Guess what, it turns out the perverted IM messages were, in fact, with someone over 18. So what we have now is an exchange between adults.

On Tuesday ABC news released a high-impact instant message exchange between Foley and, as ABC explained, a young man "under the age of 18."

ABC headlined the story: "New Foley Instant Messages; Had Internet Sex While Awaiting House Vote"

But upon reviewing the records, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, the young man was in fact over the age of 18 at the time of the exchange.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashmfa.htm

Genji
10-04-06, 10:25 PM
Guess what, it turns out the perverted IM messages were, in fact, with someone over 18. So what we have now is an exchange between adults.I'm sure the vital Christian Right voters will be satisfied now :p Without them and their money and pet social issues the Republicans would never have been elected. Now the real question of the day: Did the RNC (Not Bill Clinton) cover up for Foley to hold a Florida seat? Would any conservative let him hang out with your teen boy??

Neildo
10-04-06, 11:08 PM
Oh my god, I can't believe there's people actually trying to defend Mark Foley, LOLOLOL!!

- N

Genji
10-04-06, 11:19 PM
Oh my god, I can't believe there's people actually trying to defend Mark Foley, LOLOLOL!!

- NStunning isn't it! The CONTHERVATIVES! Defending a homo child stalker! I wonder how the Iranian branch of conservatives would react!

Bells
10-04-06, 11:58 PM
Guess what, it turns out the perverted IM messages were, in fact, with someone over 18. So what we have now is an exchange between adults.
Your point? His own lawyer has admitted that Foley has had improper communications with teenagers who were pages or former pages.



Roth conceded that his client engaged in inappropriate exchanges with pages and former pages. However, Roth emphatically stated that Foley "never, ever had an inappropriate sexual contact with a minor in his life." Any assertion that Foley is a pedophile is "categorically false," Roth said.
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/04/foley.scandal/index.html)

Hmm so because no stories that he performed the act has yet to surface, does not mean that he isn't one. Not for lack of trying it seems:


On Wednesday, more allegations surfaced. Rep. Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio, asked House Clerk Karen L. Haas to investigate "rumors" that Capitol Police stopped an intoxicated Foley from entering the page residence hall.

Pryce wrote in her letter to Haas that the rumors indicate the incident happened "within the last several years." Pryce also wrote that there is a claim that the director of Republican pages took concerns about Foley to then-House Clerk Jeff Trandahl.
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/04/foley.scandal/index.html)

Somehow I doubt that he wanted entry to the page residence hall to play charades.

Here in lies the issue. The rumours. That he behaved innapropriately cannot be denied. He's admitted it himself. Did his fellow Republicans know?


House leaders have acknowledged they were told in late 2005 that Foley was sending "overly friendly" e-mails to the Louisiana teen. Rep. John Shimkus, the Illinois Republican who chairs the board overseeing the page program, told Foley to stop, and said Foley claimed he would.

Rep. Tom Reynolds, a Republican from New York and head of the GOP's House campaign committee, has said he warned Hastert about Foley's e-mail in the spring. Hastert said he doesn't dispute Reynolds' account but doesn't recall the conversation.

------------------------------------------

According to The Associated Press, Fordham claims he told Hastert's three years ago about Foley's worrisome conduct with the pages, a claim Hastert's office denies.
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/04/foley.scandal/index.html)

How convenient.

Like all politicians, they will keep denying it. It seems that for quite a while, rumours abounded of Foley's escapades and messages, but the leadership and fellow party members prefer to turn a blind eye or simply tell him to 'stop' (like putting a jar of candy in front of a child after giving them one and then telling them to stop eating it while watching over the jar). One has to wonder, what is more worrying? That they allowed a man they most probably knew or at the very least suspected of behaving in a manner that was, in my opinion, disgusting, towards teenagers and did nothing about it? Or that they knew or suspected and turned a blind eye to protect the party name and their own collective political arses and that one vital seat. Hmm scary thought isn't it?

But Baron is right (yes I know, I too am shocked). This man does have a right to justice and his day in court. So far investigations into his conduct still appears to be ongoing, but things might not look to be too promising for Foley. Now that this is in the public light for all and sundry to see and pore over, any sign of a cover up will be even more damaging for the Republican leadership and party as a whole. The cat is out of the bag and one has to be thankful I guess. Otherwise if this had remained secret, it might have gotten worse.

His behaviour since this has emerged into the public realm has been pitiful. Blaming alcohol, being gay and having been allegedly abused as a child simply do not cut it. There is no excuse for his behaviour. Wether he has broken the law is yet to be determined by federal investigators, however child protection laws in the US are there for a reason. But one cannot deny that what he has done is wrong. Someone should point out to Foley that not all alcoholics, gays or abused people do what he did. There is nothing and no one to blame but Foley. Maybe his fellow politicians should also take note. That the privilege of their position should not protect them from laws and codes of conduct that affect everyone else.

volpeculus sagacis
10-05-06, 12:41 AM
Oh my god, I can't believe there's people actually trying to defend Mark Foley, LOLOLOL!!

- N
0.0 Ya, just came by and saw those too... now that's party loyalty.

Michael
10-05-06, 01:50 AM
Let me ask you something; if a bunch of friends and I found someone doing something that we thought was "inappropriate", would you agree that we should tar and feather him and run him out of town????? Please try to put this issue in simple terms and see how far you'd let us go. And, worse, Michael, what if you didn't agree with us that it was "immoral" behavior????Firstly no one should be tarred and feathered and ran out of town.

As to the “inappropriate” behavior – this is for society to decide. GW Bush could get dressed as a tranny, pierce his newly implanted tits nipples and attend the next UN meeting only wearing a leather thong.

I think we can agree that while legal this really is inappropriate?!?!?!?

Secondly, we as a society deem that sexual predation in the work place is inappropriate. Grooming an underage male child to suck ones cock post-18th birthday is also, by most civilized society’s standards, inappropriate. It should be noted that the now disgraced Republican ex-Senator Foley started grooming two of his male prey at the ages of 16 and 17. While I am sure each individual grooming technique may in and of themselves have been legal – as well all know the impressionable teenage mind combined with the power garnished simply by being in an authority position (such as a Senator) makes such grooming practices sick by most peoples standards.


For example: while this SMS exchange maybe technically legal, I do not think it is appropriate for ex-Senator Foley to have had this conversation while he should have been attending to the Senate’s business: Which at the time was a vote on the HR 1559, Emergency War Time supplemental appropriations. Here we see Foley using his alias Maf54.

Maf54: I miss you
Teen: ya me too
Maf54: we are still voting
Maf54: you miss me too
Maf54: ok..i better go vote..did you know you would have this effect on me
Teen: lol I guessed
Teen: ya go vote…I don't want to keep you from doing our job
Maf54: can I have a good kiss goodnight
Teen: :-*
Teen: <kiss>
Teen: are you going to be in town over the veterans day weekend
Maf54: I may be now that your coming
Maf54: who you coming to visit
Teen: haha good stuff
Teen: umm no one really
Maf54: we will be adjourned ny then
Teen: oh good
Maf54: by
Maf54: then we can have a few drinks
Maf54: lol
Teen: yes yes ;-)
Maf54: your not old enough to drink
Teen: shhh…
Maf54: ok
Teen: that's not what my ID says
Teen: lol
Maf54: ok
Teen: I probably shouldn't be telling you that huh
Maf54: we may need to drink at my house so we don't get busted


I simply believe that those who knew Foley (whether they be Democrat or Republican) was doing this sort of shit with the teenage male pages should resign in disgrace. I should hope that Floridians feel the same.


I'm not so sure, Michael, how well our congressmen can legislate and control "morality", do you? Would you like the government to begin passing laws against things that they thought were "immoral"? Think about that one, Michael, before you jump to answer it. Baron Max, most of our laws are legislated based on what is perceived as common morality. Of course these must not impinge upon the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution. However, at some point common morality is legislated and then becomes common law.

For example: It is illegal to kill ones daughter for having sex outside of marriage. While in some countries not to kill is the immoral act - in ours it is the killing which is immoral and hence we have a law against it.

Therefore when someone from another culture comes to the USA, while they may think it they have every moral right to kill their daughter for her perceived sexual misdeeds – it is against the law here.

Michael

Baron Max
10-05-06, 07:43 AM
Hmm so because no stories that he performed the act has yet to surface, does not mean that he isn't one. Not for lack of trying it seems:

Guilty until proven innocent, huh??? Or guilty for trying something? ...without benefit of trial? Hmmm?


Or that they knew or suspected and turned a blind eye to protect the party name and their own collective political arses and that one vital seat. Hmm scary thought isn't it?

Would you be suggesting that all of us begin calling the police, turning in our neighbors, for what we perceive as "inappropriate" behavior? And you DON'T find that scary? Oooh, let's all have a Friday night witch hunt! Yeah!

Or better yet ....."Get Elected ...You, Too, Can Hunt Witches!" Nice election slogan, huh? ...LOL!


Now that this is in the public light for all and sundry to see and pore over, any sign of a cover up will be even more damaging for...

Yeah, Bells, that's great ...anyone can make accusations about the behavior of anyone else, then when we start digging deeper, we can uncover any and all "inappropriate" behavior, and even possible cover-ups!

Hey, Bells, how would you like it if your neighbor or co-worker began to make accusations about you, which prompted an indepth investigation into all of your past behavior? Would you approve of that kind of "law and order"?


That the privilege of their position should not protect them from laws and codes of conduct that affect everyone else.

And yet, apparently the Justice Dept nor the FBI have found anything illegal in any of Foley's acts ....and yet we're here publically crucifying him?!


But Baron is right (yes I know, I too am shocked). This man does have a right to justice and his day in court.

You say that, yet you continued to publically crucify him?! The courts are likely to find him innocent of any illegal act, and yet he's now publically ruined and his family has been "fucked royally" .....and your post seems to indicate that you think that's just fine and dandy??? I'm surprises at you, Bells.

Baron Max

Baron Max
10-05-06, 07:47 AM
Baron Max, most of our laws are legislated based on what is perceived as common morality. Of course these must not impinge upon the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution. However, at some point common morality is legislated and then becomes common law.

Yeah, and the main issue here is ....whose "morality"? Yeah, you say "common morality", but is there such a thing in a nation that is so divided by just such "morality"?

No, Michael, what you're suggesting is that YOUR morality be used to determine the "common morality", which is a little selfish and ego-centric, ain't it?

Baron Max

Buffalo Roam
10-05-06, 08:06 AM
Baron Max, isn't amazing how the liberals demand the full protection of the law for their perverts, and terrorist, and democrat homosexuals, that we need to understand, but let the same thing happen on the other side of the political spectrum and the vigilantly pack is off in full cry, hang em high!, they demand that people be thrown from their jobs, especially when they are politically effective against them, can you say hypocrite, fish wife, rumor mongering trash! The only time they need the Flag is to wrap themselves up in it to claim their trashing of the military is patriotic, and the rest of the time they wipe there ass with it, they want the Constitution to protect them, but if some one who doesn't agree with them, the lynching party is on, does it matter if the accused actually broke the law, not to a liberal, it only matters that they can be used to send a political message, if there are ever Gulags in this country they will come from the Left, the Liberals, the friends of the Communist, and terrorist of the world!!

Baron Max
10-05-06, 08:38 AM
Well, Buffalo, you're mostly correct, but I've never viewed this issue in terms of political party at all.

And to be honest, I think that's where all the ranting and violent bullshit is coming from ....political sensationalism and political assassination. If Foley were just a regular guy on the street, no one would have made such a major issue out of it.

I'd be willing to bet that we all know someone personally who has done similar things at one time or another. I'd be willing to bet that if they were "investigated", we'd find more shit-under-the-bed than you could shake a stick at!

The Internet porno site popularity is just one good example of our hypocrisy ...there are billions and billions of hits a day on those sites. Surely that says something about us all, doens't it? Or are we all innocent of such "inappropriate behavior", and it's only the other guy who's doin' it????

Baron Max

spidergoat
10-05-06, 11:21 AM
Liberals didn't assassinate Foley, he did that himself, and it was a lifelong republican that made his behavior known. No liberal I know or read about is calling for the suspension of due process. Innocent until proven guilty applies to the judicial system. As a private citizen, I can have my own opinion, and it doesn't affect justice whatsoever. Is that so hard to understand?

I admit, I am enjoying the effects of this scandal, Hastert isn't being invited to Republican fundraisers anymore, and they will have a harder time winning in Florida, especially since Foley's name will still be on the ballot.

Baron Max
10-05-06, 11:51 AM
Hmm, so you're really enjoying the public torment of Foley and Hastert, huh? Is that something like enjoying "torture", Spider? I mean, often "torture" includes just such personal embarrassment and ridicule. Surely, you, of all people, wouldn't admit to enjoying such a horrid torment.

Baron Max

spidergoat
10-05-06, 12:05 PM
They are being punished by their own sins, not for them.

Baron Max
10-05-06, 12:06 PM
They are being punished by their own sins, not for them.

So are the terrorist and suspected terrorists.

Baron Max

spidergoat
10-05-06, 12:08 PM
Sorry, but no. There's nothing like poetic justice, it beats the justice of man anyday.

Baron Max
10-05-06, 12:15 PM
Sorry, but no.

Sorry, but yes.


There's nothing like poetic justice, it beats the justice of man anyday.

What's "poetic justice"? Is that where a person is forced to sit through some poetry reading for a whole fuckin' hour and is ready to kill the fuckin' poet after only a couple of minutes?

Baron Max

Neildo
10-05-06, 02:51 PM
Guess what, it turns out the perverted IM messages were, in fact, with someone over 18. So what we have now is an exchange between adults.

In the conversation, the teen said he was under the age of 18 yet Foley still continued to do what he did. It doesn't matter if the so-called victim (whether a prank or not as the righties suggest) is legally over 18, but that Foley thought he was under 18 at the time.

You can still get busted for that as it's called intent. How do you think police always bust online stalkers and kiddie porn people? They set up fake conversations where they think they'll meet up with a kid or somesuch and then they make their move even though the bait may not always be who they thought it was.

God, party loyalists are disgusting. Just suck it up and concede that Foley is fucked up. You guys are grasping at straws big time trying to spin this like a DJ. It'll make you guys look a lot better and not like fools blindly trying to protect this guy. Be a man and admit he's wrong to save whatever respect you may have left.

- N

Buffalo Roam
10-05-06, 02:54 PM
Neildo, intent, Bill Clinton? Gerry Studds? Barney Franks?

Neildo
10-05-06, 03:05 PM
Neildo, intent, Bill Clinton? Gerry Studds? Barney Franks?

And your point is? Do you see me defending those names? Nope! Wrong is wrong. I don't give a shit what party you belong to. Both your guys' sides are friggin' lame always trying to pull the comparison lists of red vs blue trying to think that because one person did it, others can too. :rolleyes:

The only reason why these politicians get away with what they do is because they're powerful people. If you were the one having that conversation with that teen, you'd have been busted right on the spot for being an online predator. Intent is all it takes because there are strict laws regarding that behaviour. This dude Foley knows he's in big shit especially since he was the head of the group to protect those kiddies. He wrote the rules and he screwed himself. It doesn't require a blowjob to get busted with online chats with people who think are kids, all it takes is intent. And the punishment should be 10x due to the position he holds. His position is worse and more damaging than if he were president doing this.

- N

spidergoat
10-05-06, 03:23 PM
So? These people got a censure or a reprimand, Franks was even reelected after that. I'd be satisfied with such an approach.

The acts of this one man aren't the most interesting part of this issue. It's the cover-up, the lying, the blame game, ect...

Buffalo Roam
10-05-06, 04:46 PM
But you stand with them in their calls, the Republicans would have forced him out of office if he had not resigned, they have done it before, besides it isn't for Democrats to determine who the Republican leadership is, as they paid no attention to the Republican calls for Democrats to be punished when they have committed crimes.

spidergoat
10-05-06, 04:48 PM
Correct, Republicans could keep Foley in congress, it's up to them, as long as he stays out of jail. I think he might be a liability for them, so I would support keeping him in.

Buffalo Roam
10-05-06, 04:53 PM
spidergoat, and the Democrats supported their re-election runs, so what punishment did they really suffer? they didn't lose their chairmanships, they didn't loose their party funding, Gerry Studds even received 3 standing ovations in the House after he had been reprimanded, and that was for the fact that he turned his back on the Speaker in defiance when the reprimand was read into the record, in the end did the Democrats do a dammed thing to really punish these people for real crimes?, or did they turn the into heroes, and support them?

Buffalo Roam
10-05-06, 04:57 PM
spidergoat, were did in the hell did you come up with that interpretation of what I posted? The Republicans would never have let him keep his seat, and they would have cut him off from party fund for his election run, unlike your butt bumping friends the Democrats.

spidergoat
10-05-06, 05:43 PM
Hey, if they got re-elected, how bad could they be?

In light of Foley's admissions, and Bush's gay prostitute friend in the "press" Jeff Gannon, I'd be careful which party you characterize as butt bumping. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Buffalo Roam
10-05-06, 06:20 PM
spidergoat, yes with the support of their party.

John99
10-05-06, 06:21 PM
Hey, if they got re-elected, how bad could they be?

In light of Foley's admissions, and Bush's gay prostitute friend in the "press" Jeff Gannon, I'd be careful which party you characterize as butt bumping. Not that there's anything wrong with that.


i know what station you listen to :)

Baron Max
10-05-06, 06:22 PM
Hey, since most of y'all are really concerned about this type of activity, why don't y'all want to use wiretapping and cell phone listening, etc to catch these horrid "criminals" in the act? I mean, if this minor breach of ethics is so bothering to you, surely you'd approve any and all listening-type devices, right? If not, why not?

Baron Max

Michael
10-05-06, 06:24 PM
Yeah, and the main issue here is ....whose "morality"? Yeah, you say "common morality", but is there such a thing in a nation that is so divided by just such "morality"?

No, Michael, what you're suggesting is that YOUR morality be used to determine the "common morality", which is a little selfish and ego-centric, ain't it?

Baron MaxBaron Max I did not say MY morality. And like it or not all countries, including ours, are governed mainly by a set of social norms. Our laws reflect perceived common morality so long as such Laws do not impinge upon the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.

Take the ban in some states on same-sex marriages, the prohibition of certain recreational drugs while others are legal, the age of consent, the minimum driving age, the ban on human euthanasia, the cruelty to animals ban, the ban on dumping some chemicals into rivers, the law against advertising the legal drug called tobacco to children, the example I gave about honor killing, men can walk topless down the street while woman can not, etcetera….

The Law reflects common morality and that’s a simple fact. To say otherwise really doesn’t make any sense so I am not sure what you are talking about... MY morality? I don’t get it?

I think we can agree that it is a commonly held belief in the USA that adult men should not use their appointed position in the government as a citizen- servant and representative to groom young impressionable male children into sucking their cock.

I am 100% sure that here in the USA that would not be an accepted norm and most Americans would be against that sort of behavior. That said, the Sentor himself choose to resign, as he should. He has not been charged with a crime. I simply said anyone who covered up for him should do likewise.
Further, while the Law can not govern the grooming behavior itself, if it comes to light that the Republican ex-Senator had sex with a child he will go to jail. I truly hope that such is not the case.


Michael

Baron Max
10-05-06, 06:25 PM
Sounds a whole lot like witch hunts to me, Michael, don't it to you?

I mean, should we all start turning in our friends, families and neighbors for any little breach of whatever-it-is that we consider "unethical" or "inappropriate" behavior?

Baron Max

Baron Max
10-05-06, 06:27 PM
I am 100% sure that here in the USA that would not be an accepted norm and most Americans would be against that sort of behavior.

I think the majority of Salem's citizenry thought the exact same thing when they hanged and burned all the witches, huh?

Baron Max

spidergoat
10-05-06, 06:29 PM
Hey, since most of y'all are really concerned about this type of activity, why don't y'all want to use wiretapping and cell phone listening, etc to catch these horrid "criminals" in the act? I mean, if this minor breach of ethics is so bothering to you, surely you'd approve any and all listening-type devices, right? If not, why not?

Baron Max
Wiretapping is indeed allowed if sufficient reason is found to issue a warrant.

Bells
10-05-06, 06:29 PM
Guilty until proven innocent, huh??? Or guilty for trying something? ...without benefit of trial? Hmmm?

Something your Government is quite good at Baron.


Would you be suggesting that all of us begin calling the police, turning in our neighbors, for what we perceive as "inappropriate" behavior? And you DON'T find that scary? Oooh, let's all have a Friday night witch hunt! Yeah!
Ah but this is a tad different isn't it? Foley is not everyone's neighbour in Florida. He was their representative in Congress. He was placed there because the people in Florida who voted for him did so out of trust. The parents who sent their children to be pages in Congress did so thinking and assuming that their children would not be subject to someone like Foley.

Do you honestly think that Foley sending emails and phone text messages of a sexual nature to teenage boys is not really that 'inappropriate'? Or that only a few in the public would deem it so? Even he has admitted to doing it. Your own President has exclaimed his displeasure and disgust at his behaviour. Weren't you the one to say that you'd follow and accept all that your President said? If it was even remotely possible, it seems that he's showing a bit more sense than you are at this very moment. Lets just say that you'd sent your teenage son to be a page in Congress and then when he comes home, you find a message from a middle aged man on your son's phone asking him to take off his shorts and saying to your son that he (your son) is making him (middle aged man) horny. You would not be disturbed by that? You wouldn't want to know what the hell happened there? What if your teenage son came to you and said that someone like Foley had made sexual advances towards him, you wouldn't report him to the police? Or would you consider that a witch hunt and ignore your son's coming to you for help?

There are reasons why your country has child protection laws Baron. It's to protect them from people like Foley.


Or better yet ....."Get Elected ...You, Too, Can Hunt Witches!" Nice election slogan, huh? ...LOL!
Yes. Akin to what Bush ran on in regards to hunting down terrorists, isn't it?

You seem to forget that Foley has admitted to doing it. He's resigned over it.


Yeah, Bells, that's great ...anyone can make accusations about the behavior of anyone else, then when we start digging deeper, we can uncover any and all "inappropriate" behavior, and even possible cover-ups!

Hey, Bells, how would you like it if your neighbor or co-worker began to make accusations about you, which prompted an indepth investigation into all of your past behavior? Would you approve of that kind of "law and order"?
Ermm ok. I take it you missed the part where the accusation was made and he admitted to having done it? And after his admittance or even if he didn't, you would prefer if the police did not investigate further to see just how far or how bad he actually got? If you don't think his behaviour is inappropriate then you have some issues Baron, because even Foley appears to be embarrassed enough by behaviour he himself has deemed to be pretty bad and has gone into hiding in a rehab centre.


And yet, apparently the Justice Dept nor the FBI have found anything illegal in any of Foley's acts ....and yet we're here publically crucifying him?!
The investigation is still ongoing Baron. And I suspect it will get much uglier (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/three_more_form.html) than it already is. You may be right and you might be wrong. Time will tell. He might just get away with it or face charges for lewd conduct of some sort, which will probably result in a fine. But then again, Foley knew the law and knew just how far he could go to just avoid such charges. However..


n addition to explicit sexual language, former Congressman Mark Foley's Internet messages also include repeated efforts to get the underage recipient to rendezvous with him at night.

"I would drive a few miles for a hot stud like you," Foley said in one message obtained by ABC News.

The FBI says it has opened a "preliminary investigation" of Foley's e-mails. Federal law enforcement officials say attempts by Foley to meet in person could constitute the necessary evidence for a federal charge of "soliciting for sex" with a minor on the Internet.
Link (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/emails_show_fol.html)


Hmmm.. it seems he might have made an 'oopsy' there. I'd be willing to bet that he was not be driving 'a few miles' to give the 'hot stud' an ice-cream. I mean honestly, what kind of sick perverted hack sends emails like that to a child? It goes beyond being 'inappropriate'.


You say that, yet you continued to publically crucify him?!
Was I? I thought I was being kind. To me personally, he's a sexual predator. His prey were young boys who were at the time away from their family and therefore more vulnerable. He sometimes continued the emails and messages even after they went home. It may very well be that his sexual advances did not go beyond what we already know of. But I guess differ from you. I think all sexual predators, especially those who prey on children, should be crucified.


The courts are likely to find him innocent of any illegal act,
You know that how? The investigation into his behaviour is still ongoing, yet you already know how the court will rule? Interesting.


and yet he's now publically ruined and his family has been "fucked royally"
Ermm he helped that along by not only doing what he did, but then admitting to it. I feel really bad for his family. They don't deserve the treatment they are getting. But Foley bought that on his own family and for that, he's a bigger arse. Family's of sexual predators are often victims as well.

Michael
10-05-06, 06:34 PM
What the f*ck is a “liberal” or a “conservative”? Everyone holds some ideas that can considered conservative by some and yet those same ideas will be considered liberal by others. These labels are just an excuse not to have to think.


Baron Max, isn't amazing how the liberals demand the full protection of the law for their perverts, what does this mean?


and terrorist, and democrat homosexuals, So homosexuals that are of the Democratic party are somehow the same as terrorists?
What about homosexuals that are in the Republican party?

The irony is most fundamental religious people who are persuaded to commit and act of violence against the USA would agree with many of the far right views within the Republican party.



Lastly, I think you will find many of our fellow citizens within the Florida Republican party, normally considered “conservative” would have voted Foley out of office. He did the right thing and resigned – as should the people who covered up for his predatory behavior. If it comes to light that he did have sex with children they may find themselves in jail along with him – as our Laws dictate should be the case.

John99
10-05-06, 06:40 PM
Heard about Houston? Heard about Detroit?
Heard about Pittsburgh, PA?
You oughta know not to stand by the window
somebody might see you up there
I got some groceries, some peanut butter
to last a couple of days
:)

Michael
10-05-06, 06:42 PM
It doesn't require a blowjob to get busted with online chats with people who think are kids, all it takes is intent. Well then, maybe the grooming behavior itself is unlawful.

If that is the case then certainly any fellow Republican, Democratic or Independent congressmen or women who covered up for Foley should at the minimum resign and perhaps even be charged and investigated for culpability?

Michael
10-05-06, 06:51 PM
Sounds a whole lot like witch hunts to me, Michael, don't it to you?

I mean, should we all start turning in our friends, families and neighbors for any little breach of whatever-it-is that we consider "unethical" or "inappropriate" behavior?

Baron MaxI don’t want to see witch hunts either. There are many many laws that I do not agree with. Many on the list I quickly made. In most cases I feel adults should be able to have a good amount of control over their own lives with as little interference from others as possible. Especially when it comes to relationships between two adults.

That said, we are a nation of Laws. That’s the way it is and forever will be.

While I don’t condone sticking my nose into other peoples business - if I knew of a child molester within my neighborhood who was preying on children you better bet I would get to turning that bastard in right quickly. But that’s just me and I think that such behavior is seriously depraved - one of the most heinous.

Now then, if I knew of someone growing pot and smoking it, even around their kids, I wouldn’t give two flying f*cks because I personally don’t find that behavior is very terrible - even while being unlawful. In that case I would "mind my own".

Really, this is the way all societies work.

Michael
10-05-06, 06:55 PM
I think the majority of Salem's citizenry thought the exact same thing when they hanged and burned all the witches, huh?

Baron MaxI did not say that Foley should be hanged.
I am for due justice.
If he was found to have broken the law then the justice system will deal with that as it should if not then such is the life of a politicaian. The representatives that serve us understand that they are under scrutiny for their behavior in office – especially if it may have been outside of the Law. And so far that is all that is happening – scrutinizing of the Senators behavior.

It has and always will be such.

Baron Max
10-05-06, 07:01 PM
If you don't think his behaviour is inappropriate then you have some issues Baron,....

I think fucking, unless specifically to produce a baby, is inappropriate!

I'm just not so sure that it's inappropriate to write suggestive emails. That seems far less inappropriate than fucking for purely pleasurable reasons, don't it?

I just see this whole thing as a fuckin' witch hunt and, worse, a politically motivated act for purely political reasons. I.e., if it hadn't been an election year, this probably wouldn't have been such a sensationalist issue.

But all-in-all, I'd just like to see the actual law that forbids "inappropriate behavior". My guess is that it's a very, very long, very involved law!

Baron Max

Baron Max
10-05-06, 07:07 PM
That said, we are a nation of Laws. That’s the way it is and forever will be.
Now then, if I knew of someone growing pot and smoking it, even around their kids, I wouldn’t give two flying f*cks because I personally don’t find that behavior is very terrible - even while being unlawful. In that case I would "mind my own".

It's really interesting, and tells me a lot, when you can put those two sentences together within the very same post.

What you've done is made the law nothing except for your own personal preferences and ideals. "The law is the law ....unless it's a law that I don't like." What does that say about you, Michael? And more to the point, what does it say about this Foley Witch Hunt that's going on?


...if I knew of a child molester within my neighborhood who was preying on children...

Foley has never been convicted of child molestation! Don't get your wires crossed any more than they already are, Michael!

Baron Max

Buffalo Roam
10-05-06, 07:20 PM
Michael, I never doubted they wouldn't, and I have no objection to them doing so if Foley hadn't resigned, what I am getting the red ass about is the fact that the Democrats don't punish their own perverts, and then try to control who is the lead of our party, with a smear campaign, have you heard them denounce what Foley did or have they focused their attention in trying to run Rep. J. Dennis Hastert, out of his leadership position in our party, and let look at what the Democrat leadership supports, and then we are suppose to trust them on this subject?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1713550/posts

Top 10 Democrat Sex Scandals in Congress
Human Events ^ | 10/04/2006 | staff


Posted on 10/04/2006 9:09:02 AM PDT by GoBucks2002


Information compiled from the Washington Post, “Congressional Sex Scandals in History,” and other sources.

10. Sen. Daniel Inouye. The 82-year-old Hawaii Democrat was accused in the 1990s by numerous women of sexual harassment. Democrats cast doubt on the allegations and the Senate Ethics Committee dropped its investigation.

9. Former Rep. Gus Savage. The Illinois Democrat was accused of fondling a Peace Corps volunteer in 1989 while on a trip to Africa. The House Ethics Committee decided against disciplinary action in 1990.

8. Rep. Barney Frank. The outspoken Massachusetts Democrat hired a male prostitute who ran a prostitution service from Frank’s residence in the 1980s. Only two Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to censure him in 1990.

7. Former Sen. Brock Adams. The late Washington Democrat was forced to stop campaigning after numerous accusations of drugging, assault and rape, the first surfacing in 1988.

6. Former Rep. Fred Richmond. This New York Democrat was arrested in 1978 for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old. He remained in Congress and won re-election—before eventually resigning in 1982 after pleading guilty to tax evasion and drug possession.

5. Former Rep. John Young. The late Texas Democrat increased the salary of a staffer after she gave in to his sexual advances. The congressman won re-election in 1976 but lost two years later.

4. Former Rep. Wayne Hays. The late Ohio Democrat hired an unqualified secretary reportedly for sexual acts. Although he resigned from Congress, the Democratic House leadership stalled in removing him from the Administration Committee in 1976.

3. Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.

2. Former Rep. Mel Reynolds. The Illinois Democrat was convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault with a 16-year-old. President Bill Clinton pardoned him before leaving office.

1. Sen. Teddy Kennedy. The liberal Massachusetts senator testified in defense of nephew accused of rape, invoking his family history to win over the jury in 1991.

Bells
10-05-06, 07:25 PM
I think fucking, unless specifically to produce a baby, is inappropriate!

Ermm ok.


I'm just not so sure that it's inappropriate to write suggestive emails. That seems far less inappropriate than fucking for purely pleasurable reasons, don't it?
Let me get this straight. You think it is inappropriate for, as an example, two consenting adults having sex for pleasure, but you aren't sure if it is inappropriate for an adult man, like Foley, to send sexually suggestive and explicit emails and text messages to teenage boys? Lets just be clear on this Baron.. This was not sexual messages exchanged between two consenting adults. This was an adult man, Foley, sending these messages to teenage boys.


I just see this whole thing as a fuckin' witch hunt and, worse, a politically motivated act for purely political reasons. I.e., if it hadn't been an election year, this probably wouldn't have been such a sensationalist issue.
Election year or not, it's better he is out of office and out of a position of power. Surely you are not happy keeping him there are you? Oh wait, I forget. You aren't sure if his behaviour is inappropriate or not.


But all-in-all, I'd just like to see the actual law that forbids "inappropriate behavior". My guess is that it's a very, very long, very involved law!
Did you know it was illegal for an adult to attempt to lure or solicit a child? Therefore his emailing a child and telling them to come and meet him at, saying he'd be happy to drive there so he could see the 'hot stud', could be construed as being an illegal act and as going far beyond what is deemed to be inappropriate. What you seem to not realise is that his actions go far beyond being merely inappropriate.

Baron Max
10-05-06, 07:35 PM
Let me get this straight. You think it is inappropriate for, as an example, two consenting adults having sex for pleasure, but you aren't sure if it is inappropriate for an adult man, like Foley, to send sexually suggestive and explicit emails and text messages to teenage boys?

Yeah, exactly. You done real good interpreting my words ...some people don't do too pretty good like you.


...it's better he is out of office and out of a position of power. Surely you are not happy keeping him there are you? Oh wait, I forget. You aren't sure if his behaviour is inappropriate or not.

You've brought up two different, unrelated issues now. Bells, if it were up to me, all politicians would be stood up before a big blank wall and shot by firing squads with big machine guns! And to add to that, anyone even thinking of becoming a politician would also be shot ....just for thinking of it!

Foley's behavior? The other issue? No, I don't know, I don't like it, but I'm much more concerned about us all defining "inappropriate" behavior that it scares me a lot more than a few suggestive emails. And I can't understand why it don't worry y'all, too???? Who decides what's "inappropriate"? Don't that worry y'all?


Did you know it was illegal for an adult to attempt to lure or solicit a child?

No, I did not!!?? And i have to assume that's "with the intent to...", right? Now may I ask how one proves something like that?


What you seem to not realise is that his actions go far beyond being merely inappropriate.

Well, apparently not, 'cause as of the evening news, the Justice Dept and the FBI still ain't figured out if he's commited a crime yet. So if you're so sure, and you know, perhaps you outhta' call the FBI, huh?

Baron Max

Michael
10-05-06, 07:44 PM
It's really interesting, and tells me a lot, when you can put those two sentences together within the very same post.

What you've done is made the law nothing except for your own personal preferences and ideals. "The law is the law ....unless it's a law that I don't like." What does that say about you, Michael? And more to the point, what does it say about this Foley Witch Hunt that's going on?Jaywalking is against the Law, riding a bike without a helmet is against the Law - however you and I will probably not inform on our neighbors for such indiscretions will we???

YET if there were a Child Predator in the neighborhood seen grooming teenage boys in hopes of getting his cock sucked – then YES you and I will go to the Police.

Agreed?

Michael

Michael
10-05-06, 07:48 PM
Top 10 Democrat Sex Scandals in Congress
Human Events ^ | 10/04/2006 | staff

All of those people should have resigned regardless of political affiliation.

Baron Max
10-05-06, 07:52 PM
YET if there were a Child Predator in the neighborhood seen grooming teenage boys in hopes of getting his cock sucked – then YES you and I will go to the Police. Agreed?

Sure, but ....what's that got to do with Foley? He's never been convicted of child molestation, therefore, he ain't no "child predator"?

As to your scenario, how can you tell a "child predator" from a regular person? And how can you tell that he's "grooming" a child and not just enjoying the child's company for fun? And how can you tell that he wants to get his cock sucked?

Michael, you've just got to stop and think, and think hard, before you post such things. Think about this issue with your brains and not your emotions. Think about the possible consequesnce of what you want to do, before you do them or suggest them. Think!

Baron Max

Genji
10-05-06, 07:54 PM
Sure, but ....what's that got to do with Foley? He's never been convicted of child molestation, therefore, he ain't no "child predator"?

As to your scenario, how can you tell a "child predator" from a regular person? And how can you tell that he's "grooming" a child and not just enjoying the child's company for fun? And how can you tell that he wants to get his cock sucked?

Michael, you've just got to stop and think, and think hard, before you post such things. Think about this issue with your brains and not your emotions. Think about the possible consequesnce of what you want to do, before you do them or suggest them. Think!

Baron MaxJust WAIT till the stories of his raping little boys comes out. Foley plays Michael Jackson and Party of God (GOP) Defends Him---details at 10

Buffalo Roam
10-05-06, 07:56 PM
Michael, yes Michael, they should have and since they did not their party should have cut them off from party funds removed them from their comity chairs, and not ever promoted them, but that is exactlywhat the Democrats didn't do, so where is their mandate, when you look at their past record on the subject. They are the ones who keep lowering the standard, by defining deviancy down, and justifying everything as normal behavior.

Genji
10-05-06, 07:59 PM
Michael, yes Michael, they should have and in since they did not their party should have cut them off from party funds removed them from their comity chairs, and not ever promoted them, but is that what the Democrats did, no, so where is their mandate when you look at their past record on the subject. They are the ones who keep lowering the standard, by defining deviancy down, and justifying everything as normal behavior.But YOUR man is in the hotseat, not Bill Clinton or a Democrat. A REPUBLICAN is the subject. Sorry, but it's true. Foley is a Republican pervert. How can you defend his conduct?

Buffalo Roam
10-05-06, 07:59 PM
Genji ????????????????

Baron Max
10-05-06, 08:02 PM
Just WAIT till the stories of his raping little boys comes out. ---details at 10

Ahh, now I get it. You want to convict him and hang him for something that he MIGHT have done in the past?

Oh, Michael, please quit while you're at least being somewhat sensible and somewhat intelligent. Please?

See? You didn't think before you opened your mouth, did you? Just wouldn't listen to me, huh?

Baron Max

Genji
10-05-06, 08:05 PM
Ahh, now I get it. You want to convict him and hang him for something that he MIGHT have done in the past?

Oh, Michael, please quit while you're at least being somewhat sensible and somewhat intelligent. Please?

See? You didn't think before you opened your mouth, did you? Just wouldn't listen to me, huh?

Baron MaxSo if he had raped little boys in the past that's STILL OK with you?? Unreal. Are the Righties so desperate they have to cling to child predators to feel secure in their power?? Truly nauseating how low the neoconmen will sink to retain power.

Baron Max
10-05-06, 08:07 PM
Genji, didn't I tell you that I ain't talkin' to you no more?

Baron Max

Genji
10-05-06, 08:07 PM
Genji, didn't I tell you that I ain't talkin' to you no more?

Baron MaxIf I were a child raping REpublican you'd vote for me though wouldn't you!!

Bells
10-05-06, 08:16 PM
Foley's behavior? The other issue? No, I don't know, I don't like it, but I'm much more concerned about us all defining "inappropriate" behavior that it scares me a lot more than a few suggestive emails. And I can't understand why it don't worry y'all, too???? Who decides what's "inappropriate"? Don't that worry y'all?

Baron. Most people know what is deemed appropriate and what is not. Just like most would know the difference between what is right and wrong. For example, most rational grown men know that it is wrong to send emails and sms's to teenage boys telling them that they make them horny or trying to meet them because they think the teenage boy is a 'hot stud'.


No, I did not!!?? And i have to assume that's "with the intent to...", right? Now may I ask how one proves something like that?
You're kidding me right? Ermm ok. News Flash for you Baron. Police departments in the US and in many parts of the world, and the FBI in your very own country actually go to children's chat rooms, posing as children in a bid to catch people (adults) who try to get them to come out and meet them after sending them sexually explicit and yes, inappropriate, messages and emails or who try to solicit children over the internet. It's actually illegal. And do you know why they catch them out and then arrest them after setting up elaborate stings? Because those people are deemed to be sexual predators and a risk to children. That's right Baron, Foley's little email trying to entice a young boy to come and meet him and the way that email was written could actually get him into a lot of trouble. Had he been visiting a teenage chat site and been speaking to an undercover cop, the meeting would have probably taken place and instead of a teenage boy, he'd probably be looking at a big beefy cop holding a set of handcuffs and placing him under arrest.

Now lets look at Foley and taking into account his admittance to sending boys sexually explicit emails and messages.. do you really think that when he's telling one teen that he can drive for a few miles to come and see him because the teen is a hot stud, and trying to get the teen to come and meet him that he's doing it because he wants to buy him an ice-cream? Are you really that naive?


Well, apparently not, 'cause as of the evening news, the Justice Dept and the FBI still ain't figured out if he's commited a crime yet.
It's still an ongoing investigation Baron and there are probably many pages to be interviewed, emails to be looked at and computers and harddrives to be pulled apart. This will probably go on for quite a while.

Baron Max
10-05-06, 08:35 PM
Baron. Most people know what is deemed appropriate and what is not. Just like most would know the difference between what is right and wrong.

Yeah, that's the reasons they used in the Salem witch hunts. You'd have been right there with the rope and the fire brand, huh?


Police departments in the US and in many parts of the world, and the FBI in your very own country actually go to children's chat rooms, posing as children in a bid to catch people (adults) who try to get them to come out and meet them ...

Yeah, I've heard of that ....how do they get around the "entrapment" laws? It ain't legal to "entice" someone to commit a crime, then arrest him for attempting to do it. Besides, that ain't nice, is it? Or does this go along with the Salem witch hunt rules?


That's right Baron, Foley's little email trying to entice a young boy to come and meet him and the way that email was written could actually get him into a lot of trouble.

Wel, the Justice Dept and the FBI have had about ten days now and they ain't come up with nothin' to arrest him for. Maybe they should just use the Salem witch hunt rules? Hell, we could hang him and burn him tomorrow, huh?


...do you really think that when he's telling one teen that he can drive for a few miles to come and see him because the teen is a hot stud, and trying to get the teen to come and meet him that he's doing it because he wants to buy him an ice-cream? Are you really that naive?

Well, yeah, I guess I am. Can you tell me how we can know what he's intending? Is it against the law to invite a "hot, young stud" to have ice cream now?


...It's still an ongoing investigation Baron and there are probably many pages to be interviewed, emails to be looked at ....

Not according to you and most here at scifi! Most of y'all have already convicted him and if given the chance, some of y'all would hurt him. Yet the FBI seems to be having a more difficult time with finding out what law he'd violated.

I must admit, Bells, I prefer your way. If I think someone is guilty, I'm just gonna' go shoot him between the eyes with my .44 Magnum. It's so much easier than all those silly-assed laws and rules and such, don't ya' think?

Baron Max

Neildo
10-05-06, 08:56 PM
Wow, people still trying to defend this guy. That says a lot about your characters. Man, if we can't all even agree on this dude being a teen stalker who should be taken out of office, there isn't much else we can agree on. Pretty friggin' sad and shows just how brainwashed people are. I see Baron and Buffalo just like to argue for the sake of hearing their gums flap.

- N

Genji
10-05-06, 09:06 PM
Wow, people still trying to defend this guy. That says a lot about your characters. Man, if we can't all even agree on this dude being a teen stalker who should be taken out of office, there isn't much else we can agree on. Pretty friggin' sad and shows just how brainwashed people are. I see Baron and Buffalo just like to argue for the sake of hearing their gums flap.

- NDer Baron is even against intruding on the rights of adult men to arrange sex over the Internet with minors! Says the old guy has every right to hunt for pussy in sites geared for childern and minors. A couple weeks ago local cops posing as a conservative child predator arranged to meet a 56 year old man who thought he was gittin some 12 year old poontang. The cops and the media were there to catch the pervert. How can someone DEFEND these guys?? Guess all it takes is a Florida Republican to expose the Right for what they are: Sickos.

Bells
10-05-06, 09:13 PM
Yeah, that's the reasons they used in the Salem witch hunts. You'd have been right there with the rope and the fire brand, huh?

No, I am an atheist, so therefore I'd have been tied to that stake.


Yeah, I've heard of that ....how do they get around the "entrapment" laws? It ain't legal to "entice" someone to commit a crime, then arrest him for attempting to do it. Besides, that ain't nice, is it? Or does this go along with the Salem witch hunt rules?
You're really into the Salem trials at the moment aren't you? It's in just about every post you seem to make. Is that your new little 'thing'? Anywho, moving right along from the Salem trials and your obsession of them, the police get around the entrapment laws the same way they do when they have police officers dressed as prostitutes waiting to catch people out. They do not suggest the meeting, nor do they attempt to entice the sexual pervert on the internet to get him to tell them to meet them. They let the pervert take his time. They do not suggest anything to him or her, instead letting the pervert do his whole little 'spiel'.

The people who go to these chat rooms to solicit children pose as children themselves in an attempt to not scare the other kids or make them suspicious. Sadly a lot of kids fall for it. Personally I think it is a sad indication of the depravity of some people that police officers have to resort to posing as little children in an attempt to catch them out and to keep kids safe. Sadder still is the fact you seem to think that sexual deviates should be allowed to continue to try to lure children over such mediums as the internet, referring to attempts to catch them as a witch hunt. Kind of says a lot about you Baron.


Wel, the Justice Dept and the FBI have had about ten days now and they ain't come up with nothin' to arrest him for. Maybe they should just use the Salem witch hunt rules? Hell, we could hang him and burn him tomorrow, huh?
Again with the witch hunt. Last little obsession you had was with the Vietnam War and World War II. Honestly Baron, you are clutching at straws here aren't you?

How do you know they have nothing on him? It's an ongoing investigation.

As to your obsession with the witch trials, you are aware that the hysteria that led to the witch trials was due to bad wheat?


Well, yeah, I guess I am. Can you tell me how we can know what he's intending? Is it against the law to invite a "hot, young stud" to have ice cream now?
My goodness Baron. You really are intent on defending this guy aren't you? You'd even make yourself look like a naive fool in the process. He's admitted to doing something wrong and you are defending him saying he didn't really. To use your argument, one could say that the guy who smashes your window and crawls into your home without your permission is not really there to do anything bad (eg like steal), right? Are you in self denial that Foley has done something wrong because he's a Republican? Hell even Bush thinks what he's done is pretty disgusting. Yet you just dont seem to think so?.. Again, that says a lot about you Baron. Good to know you're the type of guy who would not report someone who you suspected posed a danger to children.


Not according to you and most here at scifi! Most of y'all have already convicted him and if given the chance, some of y'all would hurt him. Yet the FBI seems to be having a more difficult time with finding out what law he'd violated.
What makes you say that Baron? Because we think that sexual deviates like Foley should not be in a position of power and instead be behind bars? Weren't you the one who said in a thread that anyone who threatened another or possibly tried to harm another should be beaten to a pulp (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58126)? And you accuse us of a acting like people high on wheat in a witch hunt? Right. But I guess you hold yourself apart from everyone else. How nice it would be in your world Baron. Sexual predators could prey on kids as much as they wanted because you'd think it was bad to investigate them or try to stop them in case it turned out like a witch hunt. But it's ok to beat an old drunk man to a pulp.


I must admit, Bells, I prefer your way. If I think someone is guilty, I'm just gonna' go shoot him between the eyes with my .44 Magnum. It's so much easier than all those silly-assed laws and rules and such, don't ya' think?
You tell me Baron. You seem to think it wrong for cops to try to catch sexual predators out, just as you seem to be unsure whether an adult male sending sexually explicit message to a child is appropriate or not. You dont think he should be held accountable for his actions?

Buffalo Roam
10-05-06, 09:23 PM
Genji, do you have any common since at all I have read the Barons post and no were did I ever see him condone Foley, if he did please post the appropriate lines from his post instead of indulging in assassinating his character, and no were have I seen anyone from the right defend what Foley has done, the only people who I have seen defend Pedophile senators and Congressman, allow them to keep their seats, promote them up the hierarchy of the party ladder. and continue to allow them access to party coffers has been the Democrats, so lets see some proof of your accusations?

Genji
10-05-06, 09:31 PM
Genji, do you have any common since at all I have read the Barons post and no were did I ever see him condone Foley, if he did please post the appropriate lines from his post instead of indulging in assassinating his character, and no were have I seen anyone from the right defend what Foley has done, the only people who I have seen defend Pedophile senators and Congressman, allow them to keep their seats, promote them up the hierarchy of the party ladder. and continue to allow them access to party coffers has been the Democrats, so lets see some proof of your accusations?So, again, it's the Democrats fault Foley is a child stalker! PROOF of what Der Baron said: In his post above, which Bells goes through to he says it's OK and not breaking the law to wanna find a minor for sex online. It's in his post. Can you read? Where are you digging up Dems?? THIS IS ABOUT PERVERT FOLEY!!!!!!!!!!!! A REFUCKINGPUBLICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU ARE DEFENDING FOLEY AND HIS ACTIONS!!!!!!!!! READ YOUR POSTS!!!!!!!!!!! READ DER BARON'S POSTS!!!!!!!!!! IT IS RIGHT THERE!!!!!!!!!! Foley did no wrong. DEMOCRATS did :rolleyes: Amazing blind support for a homo that wants to fuck a minor boy. A MINOR! It wasn't Walter Mondale. It was not Ted Kennedy. IT WAS A REPUBLICAN and the Party of God supporters here at SF ARE DEFENDING HIM!!!!!!!

Genji
10-05-06, 09:38 PM
"Well, yeah, I guess I am. Can you tell me how we can know what he's intending? Is it against the law to invite a "hot, young stud" to have ice cream "(Der Baron defending the right of adults to solicit minors, referring to them as "hot, young and stud.) He sees it as entrapment to set up stings for men that are hookin up with what they hope are kids. ALL in the name of defending a Republican. Is the GOP (Group of Perverts) really this desperate?? Can he nibble on your sons or nephews?

Neildo
10-05-06, 09:54 PM
As to your obsession with the witch trials, you are aware that the hysteria that led to the witch trials was due to bad wheat?

Really? Neat.


So, again, it's the Democrats fault Foley is a child stalker!

Haha, I know. I can't believe people are even ATTEMPTING to try and spin this. Oy..

God, suck it up.

Ooops, with my oys and suckin' it up, I'm startin to sound like Foley!

- N

Genji
10-05-06, 10:58 PM
Really? Neat.



Haha, I know. I can't believe people are even ATTEMPTING to try and spin this. Oy..

God, suck it up.

Ooops, with my oys and suckin' it up, I'm startin to sound like Foley!

- NThe tighty righties would be on any Democrat that did what Foley did like a NAMBLA member on a Cub Scout. The self righteous moral outrage would be trumpeted throughout the nation. All the air headed dittoheads would be out for blood! This disgusting and quite nasty scandal has thrown the righties off course in a very important period before the elections. Their plan was to re-terrorize America by screeching that Democrats will INVITE terrorism and only their party can protect us from non-white non Christians! Now they are in the toilet flailing away as the hearings & investigations get geared up to go deeeep into the filthy and corrupted Party of God (GOP) Bring It On! :D

Michael
10-05-06, 11:30 PM
Ahh, now I get it. You want to convict him and hang him for something that he MIGHT have done in the past?

Oh, Michael, please quit while you're at least being somewhat sensible and somewhat intelligent. Please?

See? You didn't think before you opened your mouth, did you? Just wouldn't listen to me, huh?

Baron MaxHey! That was Genji not me!

Michael
10-05-06, 11:36 PM
The tighty righties would be on any Democrat that did what Foley did like a NAMBLA member on a Cub Scout. LOL

Michael
10-05-06, 11:38 PM
Three More Former Pages Accuse Foley (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/three_more_form.html)

"I was seventeen years old and just returned to [my home state] when Foley began to e-mail me, asking if I had ever seen my page roommates naked and how big their penises were," said the page in the 2002 class. The former page also said Foley told him that if he happened to be in Washington, D.C., he could stay at Foley's home if he "would engage in oral sex" with Foley.

The second page who talked with ABC News, a graduate of the 2000 page class, says Foley actually visited the old page dorm and offered rides to events in his BMW. "His e-mails developed into sexually explicit conversations, and he asked me for photographs of my erect penis," the former page said. The page said Foley maintained e-mail contact with him even after he started college and arranged a sexual liaison after the page had turned 18.

The third page interviewed by ABC News, a graduate of the 1998 page class, said Foley's instant messages began while he was a senior in high school.

"Foley would say he was sitting in his boxers and ask what I was wearing," the page said. "It became more weird, and I stopped responding," the page said. All three pages described similar instant message and e-mail patterns, with remarkably similar escalations of provocative questions.

"He didn't want to talk about politics," the page said. "He wanted to talk about sex or my penis," the page said.

Michael
10-06-06, 12:08 AM
This is quite funny :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwt1tI6lKPk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQiNDyu_ftM&mode=related&search=

Michael
10-06-06, 12:15 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvZIq1enHDs&mode=related&search=

Bells
10-06-06, 12:21 AM
In Congress, Rep. Foley (R-FL) was part of the Republican leadership and the chairman of the House caucus on missing and exploited children.

He crusaded for tough laws against those who used the Internet for sexual exploitation of children.

"They're sick people; they need mental health counseling," Foley said.

But, according to several former congressional pages, the congressman used the Internet to engage in sexually explicit exchanges.

They say he used the screen name Maf54 on these messages provided to ABC News.
Link (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/exclusive_the_s.html)

Ironic isn't it? I wonder if he classifies himself as being amongst the 'sick people' who use the internet to prey on children. Especially in light of this (http://abcnews.go.com/images/WNT/02-02-03b.pdf) which is frankly too detailed for me to even want to copy and paste in here. I have to admit, it was kind of sickening.

This is not a political issue. This isn't the Democrats trying to get at the Republicans in an election year. People seen to be forgetting that this sad saga involves a sexual predator and his use of his office to prey on small boys. I will admit I was quite suprised by Baron's vehement defence of Foley. I mean lets think about a few things here. There is at least one instance where Foley was cybering a teenager while he was meant to be casting a vote in Congress, something that most tax payers would be appalled and probably are horrified to hear. But what if he's used his office computer and phone, all payed for by the tax payer to make his deviant little calls, emails and messages? And who'd have suspected him? The bastion of righteousness in regards to keeping children safe from sexual predators like himself.

This isn't a political issue. This is about a pathetic, sick sexual pervert who has managed to use his office to further his deviancy. How anyone can even attempt to defend him is quite frankly, beyond me.

madanthonywayne
10-06-06, 01:13 AM
This is not a political issue. This isn't the Democrats trying to get at the Republicans in an election year.
Right. Then why are they already running political ads on this issue? Why was this information held until October in an election year?

Sure, Foley's actions are reprehensible and had nothing to do with politics.

But the Democrats actions have everything to do with politics. Including, most likely, the timing of the release of this information.

The fact that Foley was Republican had nothing to do with his actions, but you wouldn't know that to listen the Democrats.

It's only been a few days since the story broke, but the scandal involving former Rep. Mark Foley is making its way into campaign advertisements already. Patty Wetterling, the Democratic candidate for Minnesota's 6th Congressional District, released a new television ad today criticizing House GOP leaders for the manner in which they have handled the Foley situation. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/10/03/5455.aspx

Michael
10-06-06, 02:15 AM
Hmmmm kind of reminds me of when Bush and Cheney ran on the platform that they were going to bring respect and dignity back to the white house. I really see little difference.

The fact is many Republicans knew for years of Foley's predatory behavior - the real question is why didn't they do something?

Zakariya04
10-06-06, 03:16 AM
Hi all,

i hope all is well.

what i fear about this is that Foley's sins will bring about the downfall of the republicans in the mid-term elections, as this will effectively devalue the other sins commited by the republican governemtn in the US

########

take care
Zak

Bells
10-06-06, 05:11 AM
Right. Then why are they already running political ads on this issue? Why was this information held until October in an election year?

Sure, Foley's actions are reprehensible and had nothing to do with politics.

But the Democrats actions have everything to do with politics. Including, most likely, the timing of the release of this information.

The fact that Foley was Republican had nothing to do with his actions, but you wouldn't know that to listen the Democrats.
I agree with you (yes I too am afraid). The Democrats are wrong to run ads on this. This is not a political issue. This is about a man who's been caught out doing something that is, well frankly, disgusting. That he is a politician should not matter. He could have been a teacher, a member of the clergy, a counsellor, etc. What will matter is that he's used his privilege in congress to commit these acts, but again, a teacher working in a public school doing the same thing would be as equally responsible. Yes Foley is a politician and I am sure that his constituents in Florida are disgusted by what he has done. But it is for them to now find another candidate to fill his shoes. The Democrats playing the political party card in this will not win them any favours. The victims, that is the teenage boys and even Foley's family, need time to recover from this and to deal with it. Votind Democrats will not ensure something like this won't happen again. They, like the Republican party have had their share of disgusting individuals filling political seats.

As to the timing of the release. I can't say for sure. I'd rather it be out than hidden, regardless of the fact it is an election year or not. As to the Republicans who may have known about this for years and said and done nothing, they too are as equally liable, as are any Democrats who may have known and said nothing waiting for an election year to bring this out into the open.

What Foley has done is something that is as you've rightly put it, reprehensible. Now maybe it is time to look at his actions as an individual, and the actions of all others who may have known and said nothing, as individuals.

Billy T
10-06-06, 06:56 AM
...This is not a political issue. This is about a man who's been caught out doing something that is, well frankly, disgusting. ...If the house leadership has known of his activities and covered them up - that sure is a political issue. Everyone (almost) agrees the man and his acts are not the issue.

You either are lacking in understanding or intentionally blowing smoke - trying to set up a smoke screen to divert attention from the real political issue.

Bells
10-06-06, 07:17 AM
If the house leadership has known of his activities and covered them up - that sure is a political issue. Everyone (almost) agrees the man and his acts are not the issue.

You either are lacking in understanding or intentionally blowing smoke - trying to set up a smoke screen to divert attention from the real political issue.
Ah so you think the Democrats are doing a good thing by running political ads about this? Don't you think it's bad enough as it is? You don't think his sending sexually explicit emails and messages to teenage boys is the issue? Ermm ok. I thought that was what this whole discussion was about. Gee, all the babbling in the media and everywhere else must be wrong then. Whether Foley is a Republican or a Democrat in this sad and sordid tale does not really matter.

What he did was wrong and as I've said above, if his fellow Republican congressmen and women knew of his actions and did nothing, then they too are wrong and all should be punished. However, I do not attribute his or their behaviour as something that is of a Republican nature. Nor would I have attributed such actions had it been committed by a Democrat, as being something they somehow do.

If the leadership knew, then they too should resign their position and beg for those kid's forgiveness. I'd say the same if this happened at a school. Those who know should also face the consequences of their actions. However, I do not see how making an ad about this and politicising it will help the issue or the Democrats themselves. Does his behaviour represent all Republicans? Somehow I doubt it. If the leadership knew, then their political lives should end there, as their actions could be construed as being political as they were hiding it and staying quiet to save their political arses and Foley's seat. But even that is a bit of a stretch.

What I wonder is what if some in the Democrats also knew of this? Aren't they just as guilty as the Republicans who hid it? Running an ad campaign is kind of wrong in my opinion.

Baron Max
10-06-06, 07:31 AM
...the police get around the entrapment laws the same way they do when they have police officers dressed as prostitutes waiting to catch people out.

No, the cops ain't gotten "around" the entrapment laws, they have to be very, very careful and do it just exactly according to the law, or it's all thrown out in court. There are laws, Bells, and that's what this great nation is built upon ...and you seem perfectly willing to toss all that out the window because of your emotional feelings about this particular issue.

Did you know, for instance, that the show Dateline "To Catch a Predator" is set up by NBC who do all of the "shitty entrapment", pose the "little girl", who is paid for the performance, then when the guys fall into the trap, they, the "private citizens" call the police? Now ...you don't call that entrapment? I've also heard that the courts are beginning to throw out many of those cases as entrapment. What'cha think about that?


...you seem to think that sexual deviates should be allowed to continue to try to lure children over such mediums as the internet, referring to attempts to catch them as a witch hunt. Kind of says a lot about you Baron.

It's not what I think, Bells, it's what the law is and should be. If Foley and these others violate the law, then they should be punished according to the law. If they have not violated the law, then the ideals of "inappropriate behavior" and "irresponsible" take on a whole new meaning, don't they?

Why do we even bother with laws and courts? Why don't we all just form our own little vigilante groups and whenever we think someone is acting "inappropriately" or "irresponsibly", we just take 'em out and hang 'em?


How do you know they have nothing on him? It's an ongoing investigation.

I heard on the evening news Thursday night that the Justice Dept and the FBI are still trying to figure out if what he did is illegal ...they ain't found any laws yet that he violated. And yet, you and most of the people here already act like he's not only violated a law, but you've practically convicted him as well. In a nation where law is all-important, I just don't think that's right, do you?


My goodness Baron. You really are intent on defending this guy aren't you?

If you can't tell the difference in defending his actions and defending the laws of the nation, then it's no wonder to me that you're having a difficult time with this issue.


He's admitted to doing something wrong and you are defending him saying he didn't really.

Do you consider "wrong" and "against the law" as the same thing??? Again, Bells, we're a nation of laws ....so what law did he violate ...please tell me ...I've asked several times, yet no one has come forward. You should also tell the FBI, cause they ain't figured it out yet!

And again, for those of you who can't read, I'm not defending Foley, I'm defending the concept of the law, which is one of the main building blocks of this great nation.


You tell me Baron. You seem to think it wrong for cops to try to catch sexual predators out, just as you seem to be unsure whether an adult male sending sexually explicit message to a child is appropriate or not.

I think the courts are beginning to see that many of those "stings" are, in fact, entrapment, and as such, they're illegal.

As for something being iappropriate, remember ...I said fucking without the intent of producing a baby is inappropriate behavior and should be punished by burning at the stake! What you think is inappropriate might not be for others - what I think is inappropriate might not be for others. Who is to decide that, Bells? Well, I think it oughta' be the law, don't you?

So, if we want such behavior to be illegal, then lets pass a law ...."No adult can send emails or text messages to underage children". There ya' go, nice law, huh?

And again, for those of you who can't read, I'm not defending Foley, I'm defending the concept of the law, which is one of the main building blocks of this great nation. It also has nothing to do with republican or democrat, both are a bunch of pricks who should be shot on sight!

Baron Max

Billy T
10-06-06, 08:24 AM
Ah so you think the Democrats are doing a good thing by running political ads about this? .... I thought that was what this whole discussion was about. ...From their POV, they obviously think their ads are helping their cause, and I would tend to agree, but the ads are not the issue either.

You still do not understand or, as I said before, you are just blowing very partisian smoke to try to aid the cover up or at least distract attention from the real issue:

Did the house leadership cover up to protect one of their own?

Bells
10-06-06, 09:51 AM
No, the cops ain't gotten "around" the entrapment laws, they have to be very, very careful and do it just exactly according to the law, or it's all thrown out in court. There are laws, Bells, and that's what this great nation is built upon ...and you seem perfectly willing to toss all that out the window because of your emotional feelings about this particular issue.

And the police usually is quite careful to ensure that the charge against the sexual predator sticks. And they usually do.


It's not what I think, Bells, it's what the law is and should be. If Foley and these others violate the law, then they should be punished according to the law. If they have not violated the law, then the ideals of "inappropriate behavior" and "irresponsible" take on a whole new meaning, don't they?
Ironic isn't it that the law Foley probably broke by attempting to solicit a child over the internet is one that he helped draft (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/15664723.htm).

The law basically states that you cannot use the internet to solicit or attempt to solicit minors.


At least one former page has reportedly offered evidence that Foley sought to solicit sex during instant message exchanges over the Internet.

The "preliminary investigation" appears to be heading towards a full field investigation, according to one official.

Officials say Foley's extensive knowledge of child exploitation laws may have helped guide him as to how far he could go without violating the law.

Instant messages obtained by ABC News indicated Foley met or arranged to meet young men under the age of 18 who had been pages.
Link (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/fbi_contacting_.html)


Hmmm.. interesting don't you think?


In addition to explicit sexual language, former Congressman Mark Foley's Internet messages also include repeated efforts to get the underage recipient to rendezvous with him at night.

"I would drive a few miles for a hot stud like you," Foley said in one message obtained by ABC News.
Link (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/emails_show_fol.html)

Ironic.


I heard on the evening news Thursday night that the Justice Dept and the FBI are still trying to figure out if what he did is illegal ...they ain't found any laws yet that he violated. And yet, you and most of the people here already act like he's not only violated a law, but you've practically convicted him as well. In a nation where law is all-important, I just don't think that's right, do you?
And from what I've heard, the FBI and the Justice Department are still investigating and poring over documents and interviewing pages and other staff members. I'm guessing that Foley was quite a busy little pervert and they probably have quite a bit of ground to cover.

So pending the investigation, people should what? Stop even discussing it? Do I think he's violated the law? Having read the acts in question, I'd say yes. But as has been pointed out before, he helped draft the law so I am sure he knows just how far he can go before he breaks it outright. But if he's attempted to get a child to meet him, then yes he's stuffed up and gone too far and broken the law. Should he be convicted if found guilty? Yes. Should he be reinstated into his position if he is not charged or found not guilty. No. He has admitted to the wrong doing himself. He has admitted that his behaviour was 'inappropriate'. I honestly cannot believe that you have difficulty finding an issue with an adult man sending sexually explicit messages and basically cybering a child.


If you can't tell the difference in defending his actions and defending the laws of the nation, then it's no wonder to me that you're having a difficult time with this issue.
What was it that you said? Ah yes, here it is..


I'm just not so sure that it's inappropriate to write suggestive emails.
To which I replied..

Let me get this straight. You think it is inappropriate for, as an example, two consenting adults having sex for pleasure, but you aren't sure if it is inappropriate for an adult man, like Foley, to send sexually suggestive and explicit emails and text messages to teenage boys? Lets just be clear on this Baron.. This was not sexual messages exchanged between two consenting adults. This was an adult man, Foley, sending these messages to teenage boys.
And this is where you come out with..

Yeah, exactly. You done real good interpreting my words ...some people don't do too pretty good like you
Hell, you don't seem to think he's done anything wrong at all. Now had he fucked a kid without the intent of having a child, you'd probably be screaming bloody murder.


Do you consider "wrong" and "against the law" as the same thing??? Again, Bells, we're a nation of laws ....so what law did he violate ...please tell me ...I've asked several times, yet no one has come forward. You should also tell the FBI, cause they ain't figured it out yet!
Child sex offences. Laws that he helped draft. Refer to links above and listed throughout this thread going a bit more indepth for you.


And again, for those of you who can't read, I'm not defending Foley, I'm defending the concept of the law, which is one of the main building blocks of this great nation.
No. You're not defending him. You just keep saying that his sending sexually explicit messages and emails to children is not really that wrong. :rolleyes:


So, if we want such behavior to be illegal, then lets pass a law ...."No adult can send emails or text messages to underage children". There ya' go, nice law, huh?
Amend that to 'no adult can send sexually explicit emails to underage children, nor can they solicit them'. But hey, that already exists.


And again, for those of you who can't read, I'm not defending Foley, I'm defending the concept of the law, which is one of the main building blocks of this great nation. It also has nothing to do with republican or democrat, both are a bunch of pricks who should be shot on sight!
And shooting a politician on sight is not illegal? And here I thought you think the law is a wonderful thing and that you are defending it. But you want to shoot the people who make said laws on sight.

Baron Max
10-06-06, 11:05 AM
And the police usually is quite careful to ensure that the charge against the sexual predator sticks. And they usually do.

Not around here in Texas they don't stick so damned well! The courts throw out many such cases, even after the community has "convicted" the people in the papers and on tv.

We had one case of a teacher who was accused by three girls. The news were ballistic, of course, and his name was smeared all over the state. Turns out the three girls didn't like the grade he gave them so made up the whole thing. The teacher is no longer a teacher, can't get a job anywhere, has been ostracized from his family and friends, and is now working on a warehouse loading dock. Nice, huh?


Ironic isn't it that the law Foley probably broke by attempting to solicit a child over the internet is one that he helped draft.

Ahh, so it IS a law? And it's already been passed? Bells, I've been asking here for about umpty-eleven posts what law he violated ...and that even the FBI didn't know! Now you tell me that it's a law?


So pending the investigation, people should what?

They should do everything that they can to ruin his life, ruin his career, ruin the lives of his family and friends, ...and any and all thing possible before he's found guilty in a court of law. They should ostracize him from the community and no one should ever be allowed to talk to him again. Yeah, that works for me ....as it apparently works well for you and most of the poeple here.


He has admitted that his behaviour was 'inappropriate'.

What's "inappropriate" behavior, Bells ...can you explain that to me? And other than what Foley has done, what else is "inappropriate"? And who decides that other than a court of law? And weren't the witches of Salem accused and convicted of "inappropriate" behavior?


Hell, you don't seem to think he's done anything wrong at all.

Well, I wasn't so sure earlier, but now that you've said it's a law, then I guess it's a law. The law is the way he should be tried in a court of law, not on the tv news or the papers or on Internet forums.


And shooting a politician on sight is not illegal?

Didn't bother to read what I wrote, did you?

But I must say, I really do like the idea of vigilante law ...a bunch of self-righteous people who are willing to make accusations, convict a person of "inappropriate behavior", then carrying out the sentence by themselves. It's the way this great nation won the west, ain't it? Worked then, should work just as well today. We'll call ourselves "Bell's Rangers" ....sound good?

Baron Max

spidergoat
10-06-06, 12:32 PM
...what else is "inappropriate"? And who decides that other than a court of law?
His own party, evidently.

spidergoat
10-06-06, 12:34 PM
Why was this information held until October in an election year?
Held by whom?

Baron Max
10-06-06, 01:20 PM
His own party, evidently.

I'm assuming by your post that you don't like that, so who else should decide what's "inappropriate behavior"? And would that then be the same for all citizens or just congressmen?

Baron Max

spidergoat
10-06-06, 02:09 PM
No, you misunderstand, I think it is appropriate. His own party forced him to resign, so it's difficult to blame anyone else for a witch hunt or sensationalim.

Neildo
10-06-06, 04:17 PM
This is quite funny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwt1tI6lKPk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQiNDyu_ftM&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvZIq1enHDs&mode=related&search=

Haha, I busted a gut during so many of those moments. My favorite was in the 3rd link something along the lines of: "This just in, we have word that Mark Foley recently masturbated into the slime bucket at the Nickelodeon's Kid's Choice Awards. It's okay though, republicans say that 9/11 changed everything." LoL!

- N

Bells
10-06-06, 05:00 PM
Not around here in Texas they don't stick so damned well! The courts throw out many such cases, even after the community has "convicted" the people in the papers and on tv.

We had one case of a teacher who was accused by three girls. The news were ballistic, of course, and his name was smeared all over the state. Turns out the three girls didn't like the grade he gave them so made up the whole thing. The teacher is no longer a teacher, can't get a job anywhere, has been ostracized from his family and friends, and is now working on a warehouse loading dock. Nice, huh?

So in light of this, we should simply ignore what a child says when it reports that he/she has been abused? It's a shame that the courts in your state or the police don't adhere to the rules. Think of all the paedophiles let free to roam the streets. That must comfort you quite a bit.

Don't you ever think that the law or the courts are sometimes wrong? Ah but I forget, you're a sheep and will merely nod anytime the authorities tell you to nod.


Ahh, so it IS a law? And it's already been passed? Bells, I've been asking here for about umpty-eleven posts what law he violated ...and that even the FBI didn't know! Now you tell me that it's a law?
I'm guessing Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 would be one.


They should do everything that they can to ruin his life, ruin his career, ruin the lives of his family and friends, ...and any and all thing possible before he's found guilty in a court of law. They should ostracize him from the community and no one should ever be allowed to talk to him again. Yeah, that works for me ....as it apparently works well for you and most of the poeple here.
Well we all know what he's done. Checked himself into a rehab clinic and sent his lawyer out with a statement that was so Clintonesque in that it basically amounted to a 'I did not touch those little boys, I only sent them emails saying I'd like to', it is equally pathetic. Lets not forget Baron, those who turned on him first were the ones who probably sheltered him for quite a while. It was his fellow party members who sent him packing and stripped him bare to face the wolves that constituted the public, who are pissed off that they payed his salary as he sent kids emails discussing whether he (Foley) made them get a woody and whether they are rubbing said woody (http://abcnews.go.com/images/WNT/02-02-03b.pdf). Even if he is not charged, he should never work in Congress again, where he would continue to have access to pages. Personally I think he should be locked up and classified as a sexual predator, because that is what he is.

You seem to forget, it was he who brought shame onto his family and himself with his behaviour. Had he not done it, he could have stayed on and fought. But he did do it. He's admitted to having done it, claiming that he's gay, an alcoholic and a victim of child abuse as a child, as though they are somehow excuses for what he's done. There is NO excuse for his behaviour. And the public who payed his wages so that he could commit these acts, some of them on Government time, will never forget or let him forget it. Had this not come out, he'd still be free to roam the halls of Congress, be paid and still have access to those children. Yes Baron, the children. We know he's attempted to solicit children for sex. And that does not disturb you? It doesn't disturb you that he might just get away with it, even though he's admitted to having done it?


What's "inappropriate" behavior, Bells ...can you explain that to me? And other than what Foley has done, what else is "inappropriate"? And who decides that other than a court of law? And weren't the witches of Salem accused and convicted of "inappropriate" behavior?
Again with the witch trials! You are obsessed Baron. You don't think that it is inappropriate for a Congressman to send messages to children with comments such as:


Maf54 (8:03:47 PM): what you wearing
Xxxxxxxxx (8:04:04 PM): normal clothes
Xxxxxxxxx (8:04:09 PM): tshirt and shorts
Maf54 (8:04:17 PM): um so a big buldge
Xxxxxxxxx (8:04:35 PM): ya
Maf54 (8:04:45 PM): um
Maf54 (8:04:58 PM): love to slip them off of you
Xxxxxxxxx (8:05:08 PM): haha
Maf54 (8:05:53 PM): and gram the one eyed snake
Maf54 (8:06:13 PM): grab
Xxxxxxxxx (8:06:53 PM): not tonight...dont get to excited
Maf54 (8:07:12 PM): well your hard
Xxxxxxxxx (8:07:45 PM): that is true
Maf54 (8:08:03 PM): and a little horny
Xxxxxxxxx (8:08:11 PM): and also tru
Maf54 (8:08:31 PM): get a ruler and measure it for me
Xxxxxxxxx (8:08:38 PM): ive already told you that
Maf54 (8:08:47 PM): tell me again
Xxxxxxxxx (8:08:49 PM): 7 and 1/2
Maf54 (8:09:04 PM): ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Maf54 (8:09:08 PM): beautiful
From the link given above and obtained from link (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/exclusive_the_s.html) ..

Actually scrap inappropriate. It's just downright disgusting. Great way to be spending all that taxpayer money huh?


Well, I wasn't so sure earlier, but now that you've said it's a law, then I guess it's a law. The law is the way he should be tried in a court of law, not on the tv news or the papers or on Internet forums.
Oh I also believed he should be stripped naked and dragged over a bed of hot coals. And you're right he should be tried in a court of law, and he should be jailed for a long long time.


But I must say, I really do like the idea of vigilante law ...a bunch of self-righteous people who are willing to make accusations, convict a person of "inappropriate behavior", then carrying out the sentence by themselves. It's the way this great nation won the west, ain't it? Worked then, should work just as well today. We'll call ourselves "Bell's Rangers" ....sound good?
I learned from the best Baron. Your very own president, the one you've said you follow and agree with everything he says and does because he is the president, seems to be quite good at it. But hey, you tell me, aren't you the one who gave someone advice that they should beat the living shit out of an old drunken man? Or who seems to think that shooting someone from your front porch should be, well, the norm? I'm not saying he should be crucified by the public. I'm saying he should be charged and sent to jail for what he's done, branded a sexaul predator and registered as such. After all, that was what he fought for when he helped implement child protection laws against sexual solicitation and pornography, and it should apply to him as equally as it applies to members of the public when they get caught of doing what he's done.

Baron Max
10-06-06, 06:16 PM
Ah but I forget, you're a sheep and will merely nod anytime the authorities tell you to nod.

Yes, Ma'am, I'm sorry.

And I'm also sorry that I can't stoop to personal attacks in order to satisfy your obvious need for it.

Baron Max

madanthonywayne
10-06-06, 09:00 PM
I agree with you (yes I too am afraid). The Democrats are wrong to run ads on this. This is not a political issue. This is about a man who's been caught out doing something that is, well frankly, disgusting. That he is a politician should not matter.
Exactly. And I agree that anyone who knew of his reprehensible actions should also be prosecuted. Turning this into an election issue is a sign of the weakness of the Democrats. Rather than run on ideas, on issues, they hope to ride this BS into power.

Genji
10-06-06, 10:22 PM
Exactly. And I agree that anyone who knew of his reprehensible actions should also be prosecuted. Turning this into an election issue is a sign of the weakness of the Democrats. Rather than run on ideas, on issues, they hope to ride this BS into power.Just like the Republicans rode into power in 2000 on the gay marriage fear factor. They did the same thing in '04 but also had terrorism to terrorize us with. BOTH parties are bankrupt of ideas or common sense.

terryoh
10-07-06, 12:42 AM
Not a political issue? Of course it's a political issue. It's a crime against the country to have a public representative sending horribly pedophiliac messages to an underaged kid.

I bet if Clinton did this back in the 90s, I'm sure Republicans would be like, "Oh, let's keep this quiet and not make it a big political issue. It's the only FAIR thing to do."

This is politics folks. If you screw up, it becomes public and will be politicized. Get over it, for those of you who are supporting Hastert/Foley on this issue.

Now, let me count...
--Delay
--Abramhoff
--Scanlon
--Ney
--Cheney
--Foley
--Reid
--Gingrich
--Livingston

Seems like a pretty long list :)

Voodoo Child
10-07-06, 01:39 AM
Haha, I busted a gut during so many of those moments. My favorite was in the 3rd link something along the lines of: "This just in, we have word that Mark Foley recently masturbated into the slime bucket at the Nickelodeon's Kid's Choice Awards. It's okay though, republicans say that 9/11 changed everything." LoL!

My fav was ABC's one handed typing. Thanks for the links

Bells
10-07-06, 02:20 AM
Not a political issue? Of course it's a political issue. It's a crime against the country to have a public representative sending horribly pedophiliac messages to an underaged kid.

I bet if Clinton did this back in the 90s, I'm sure Republicans would be like, "Oh, let's keep this quiet and not make it a big political issue. It's the only FAIR thing to do."

This is politics folks. If you screw up, it becomes public and will be politicized. Get over it, for those of you who are supporting Hastert/Foley on this issue.

Now, let me count...
--Delay
--Abramhoff
--Scanlon
--Ney
--Cheney
--Foley
--Reid
--Gingrich
--Livingston

Seems like a pretty long list :)
One of the main reasons this should not be made into a political issue is that the victims are children. This kind of behaviour is not solely in a political domain but can and does occur everywhere. Arrest the individual and those who knew of it and said or did nothing, not because they are politicians but because they sat back and did nothing knowing that the victims were children.


And I'm also sorry that I can't stoop to personal attacks in order to satisfy your obvious need for it.
Oh really? Well pot.. kettle.. black Baron. You are usually not only insulting and threatening at times, but you are also down right rude all the time. You just do not like it when it is aimed back at you. If you can't take it, then do not dish it out. If you cannot answer a question or a statement, just admit it. Not everyone will bow down to you and just accept what you say, like you seem to do with your Government and your President. Your words and your views do make you a sheep.. because you just accept and never question or disagree with whatever your President or your Government does.

Baron Max
10-07-06, 06:14 AM
And I agree that anyone who knew of his reprehensible actions should also be prosecuted.

Is that "prosecuted" as in tried in a court of law?

Or do you mean "persecuted" as in a public vigilante action to cause harm, to harrass or to cause personal ruin?

If I'm not mistaken, in order to "prosecute", there must have been an existing legal statute in place prior to the alleged action. What crime did they commit? And as late as the Friday evening news, no one seems to know what crime Foley committed, much less the crimes of others.

Baron Max

Billy T
10-07-06, 07:29 AM
...If I'm not mistaken, in order to "prosecute", there must have been an existing legal statute in place prior to the alleged action. What crime did they commit? And as late as the Friday evening news, no one seems to know what crime Foley committed, much less the crimes of others. Baron MaxNice to see you strong on law and order. Keep up the good work.

I am confused, perhaps with faulty memory, but were you not on the “anarchy is good” side a while back?

Baron Max
10-07-06, 07:30 AM
You have nothing useful to say, Billy?

Baron Max

Baron Max
10-07-06, 09:34 AM
An article by William F. Buckley for the Universal Press Syndicate:

"Everybody wants Mr. Foley out of sight for ...unseemliness. We just don't like this kind of thing. But if there were really a national uproar against the corruption of minors, Mr. Foley would be entirely incidental to such a campaign. We are mad at him for doing what he did, but we aren't really all that mad at the thing being done. If we were bent on prohibiting the corruption of minors, half the magazine stands in the US would be closed down by midnight."

And I have to agree. We're just ranting, but without any intention of actually doing anything about the very thing about which we rant. We're just going through the motions because it's in the headlines or on the newscasts.

If we really didn't want sexual predators to prey on minors, then we'd hunt them down relentlessly and kill them or get rid of them from our society. But we don't do it. Instead, as is often the case, we arrest them and sometimes try them, but most often, usually at the insistence of the doo-gooder liberals, we let them right back out on the streets to do it all again to some other minor.

No, Buckley's right ...we don't really care. We're just following the crowd that rants at the nearest thing to rant at. Tomorrow, we'll just find something else to rant about, and the Foley issue will all be forgotten.

Baron Max

Billy T
10-07-06, 01:41 PM
You have nothing useful to say, Billy? Baron MaxOK, I'll try:
You need to learn how to accept a compliment. I like you, but as we usually disagree, you will not get many from me. :D

Is that better, or still useless?

Neildo
10-07-06, 02:18 PM
"Everybody wants Mr. Foley out of sight for ...unseemliness. We just don't like this kind of thing. But if there were really a national uproar against the corruption of minors, Mr. Foley would be entirely incidental to such a campaign. We are mad at him for doing what he did, but we aren't really all that mad at the thing being done. If we were bent on prohibiting the corruption of minors, half the magazine stands in the US would be closed down by midnight."

And I have to agree. We're just ranting, but without any intention of actually doing anything about the very thing about which we rant. We're just going through the motions because it's in the headlines or on the newscasts.

If Foley were any ol' regular person, I would agree with what that guy said. However, Foley is head of the friggin' group for abused and exploited children and THAT's what makes it absolutely disgusting.

I personally don't care if adults have relationships with minors, assuming they're not 5 years old or anything like that. 14 and up is fine with me as that's high school age. Hell, I, and many of my friends were sexually active in 6th grade.

This guy Foley is in a unique position in that he's the one supposedly trying to stop all this behavior and thinks it's sick while he goes behind our backs doing the exact opposite of what he's supposed to stand for and that's just wrong.

So no, I have to disagree with what that writer said. His position is like the teachers that take advantage of their students or priests that molest their altar boys. They're the ones who try and protect children yet are the ones exploiting their trust to get what sexual needs they have while they preach out against it.

- N

terryoh
10-07-06, 05:32 PM
In any case, the Democrats better concentrate on the COVER UP issue, not the crime itself. The crime only deals with Foley himself. The cover up can possibly be disastrous for the entire Republican party, since it involves many others.

Redefine91
10-07-06, 05:43 PM
I heard that the kids responses to the sexual emails were done as a prank.


then again it was on Rush so it may not be EXACTLY fair and balanced

Baron Max
10-07-06, 06:27 PM
This guy Foley is in a unique position in that he's the one supposedly trying to stop all this behavior and thinks it's sick while he goes behind our backs doing the exact opposite of what he's supposed to stand for and that's just wrong.

So ...you don't like hippo=crits, huh? If that's true, then you must not like many people, that's all I gotta' say!


His position is like the teachers that take advantage of their students or priests that molest their altar boys.

Foley didn't molest anyone. He just wrote some sexually suggestive emails and text messages (whatever those are?). So ...is writing suggestive emails bad? ..even to minors that he knew personally?


They're the ones who try and protect children...

If any parent depends on someone else to protect their children, then those children are in a pretty bad situation already!!

But I think you missed Buckley's point actually. He's basically saying that we're really and truly not interested in stopping phedophiles and child molestors or we'd actually do something about it ....instead of just rant and rave whenever something happens to a kid. We'd go out, find those bastards, and then hang 'em. But we don't, do we??? Nope ...and we often let them go without even prison time. So.......do we really care? Or are we just saying it 'cause it's the thing to say?

Baron Max

Neildo
10-07-06, 07:31 PM
This guy Foley is in a unique position in that he's the one supposedly trying to stop all this behavior and thinks it's sick while he goes behind our backs doing the exact opposite of what he's supposed to stand for and that's just wrong.

So ...you don't like hippo=crits, huh? If that's true, then you must not like many people, that's all I gotta' say!

Uh, there's a HUGE difference between the average little hypocrit vs someone's total abuse of power. Putting Foley in charge of abused and exploited children is like putting Pablo Escobar in charge of the anti-drug task force or Henry Kissinger in charge of the 9/11 commission.


Foley didn't molest anyone. He just wrote some sexually suggestive emails and text messages (whatever those are?). So ...is writing suggestive emails bad? ..even to minors that he knew personally?

Tell that to the cops who've arrested numerous child predators for their online chats with kiddies.


He's basically saying that we're really and truly not interested in stopping phedophiles and child molestors or we'd actually do something about it ....instead of just rant and rave whenever something happens to a kid. We'd go out, find those bastards, and then hang 'em.

Because taking any action against them is illegal. Aren't you one of the people that complains about vigilante justice and how people should follow the law? We can't have the loudest mob rule, no?

The real reason why people don't go out to stop those people is because of how powerless us people actually are. Hell, there's demostrations with hundreds of thousands of people all the time yet nothing changes. Sure, we can vote but that won't do a damned thing when the criminals are the politicians who can easily circumvent that.

Anyways, justice is usually served for people like that. They get put in jail, even if for a short period, but then you have the guys in those prisons make them their house bitch and soon kill em. Pedophiles are along the most hated group of people next to snitches and corrupt cops. If you're any of the three and are in prison, you better become religious and start praying to god to protect your ass.

- N

Neildo
10-07-06, 07:38 PM
Heh, I stumbled upon this funny pic that made me think of this thread. Can we try and impeach Bush for getting a BJ from a turkey?

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/george-w-bush/george_w_bush_turkey_shrunk.jpg

:p

- N

Baron Max
10-08-06, 06:48 AM
Uh, there's a HUGE difference between the average little hypocrit vs someone's total abuse of power.

Ahh, so you don't believe in equality under the law, is that it?

Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others, is that it? And you seem to agree with those "ideals".


Tell that to the cops who've arrested numerous child predators for their online chats with kiddies.

Hmm, check the conviction records, then you'll see that it's all just a big scare tactic by the police to satisfy the bullshit politicians and the hyper-tense parents. Those people picked up (sometimes arrested?) don't even go to court, much less to prison. It's just a little game to satisfy people like you.


The real reason why people don't go out to stop those people is because of how powerless us people actually are. Hell, there's demostrations with hundreds of thousands of people all the time yet nothing changes.

And yet people still keep doin' it, don't they? ...just following the crowd, just out havin' some fun with the gang, just hopin' to be shown on tv. But it don't mean shit, you're right! And it shouldn't ....or do you want a "Government by Protest" style system? Whoever yells the loudest gets to make governmental policies?


Pedophiles are along the most hated group of people next to snitches and corrupt cops. If you're any of the three and are in prison, you better become religious and start praying to god to protect your ass.

There's about 800 gazillion pedophiles in the world ....how many are there in prison? How many have been arrested? How many are convicted?

Neildo, just wait a little while ....all this will blow over and the nice little pedophiles will be back on the streets and on the Internet in the same or greater numbers. And that's obviously what the people really want ....or they'd do something about it.

Baron Max

Neildo
10-08-06, 10:27 AM
Ahh, so you don't believe in equality under the law, is that it?

Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others, is that it? And you seem to agree with those "ideals".

Reality is that everyone isn't equal. Hell, just look at politicians in general. A scandal comes their way and they keep their jobs making tons of money, or they get displaced elsewhere making the same amount of money holding the same kind of power. Foley won't serve jail time whereas the common man would be there in a heartbeat.

Sorry, but you gotta try harder trying to push that equality agenda on us when even yourself know how full of shit it is. Equality just flat out doesn't exist nor ever will. Freedom in America is all about what you can afford. We literally have the best politicians that money can buy. ;)

- N

Baron Max
10-08-06, 11:12 AM
Foley won't serve jail time whereas the common man would be there in a heartbeat.

What law did he violate? I'm still trying to figure that out ....and the FBI ain't figured it out yet, either.


Sorry, but you gotta try harder trying to push that equality agenda on us when even yourself know how full of shit it is. Equality just flat out doesn't exist nor ever will. Freedom in America is all about what you can afford. We literally have the best politicians that money can buy.

Are you stating a fact or complaining or both?

Baron Max

Bells
10-08-06, 06:15 PM
I think Karen Tumulty from Time put it best..


Although Hastert and other Republican leaders say they heard last fall about the "overfriendly" approaches of a not-so-secretly-gay Congressman to a 16-year-old former page--both majority leader John Boehner and campaign chairman Tom Reynolds say they brought it up with Hastert last spring--they insist they never imagined anything like the more graphic instant messages that subsequently came to light. Boehner spokesman Kevin Madden said his boss was told only that there had been "contact" between Foley and a page, and that his knowledge of even that much came from a fleeting conversation on the House floor. But shouldn't someone have got chills at learning that a 52-year-old man had sent a teenager a creepy e-mail asking for a "pic of you"? Certainly the page understood what the e-mail meant, which is why he forwarded it in August 2005 to the office of Louisiana Congressman Rodney Alexander, who had sponsored him for the page program and who was alarmed enough to take his concern to Boehner. "This freaked me out," the teenager wrote. "Sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick."

The House response was political from the start. Last November, Jeff Trandahl, then clerk of the House, told John Shimkus, the Republican head of the board that oversees the page program, about the less incriminating e-mails. But nobody bothered to inform the board's lone Democrat. Shimkus and Trandahl appear to have done nothing more than give Foley a private warning. When Alexander expanded the circle of those aware of the e-mails the following spring, one of the two people he chose to loop in was Reynolds, head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, whose job is managing the election. Foley wasn't even stripped of his co-chairmanship of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children.

Even after a batch of truly sleazy instant messages was discovered by ABC News, Reynolds' chief of staff Kirk Fordham, who was also a former aide to Foley, tried to solve the political problem by attempting to talk the network out of publishing the worst of the messages.

---------------------------------------

All this suggests that the Republican leaders were motivated much more by fear of electoral fallout than concern for the young pages in their care. And if they were worried that the revelation would hurt their chances of holding on to the House, they turned out to be right.
Link (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1543943-2,00.html)

Ironic isn't it. They learnt of this so long ago and they did not even remove him from his seat on the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, which deals exactly with what he is now being investigated for. Even if Foley gets away with it and is not charged, people will not forget what the party and he have done easily. Foley has been discovered as being one to prey on people's children and his party, when finding out about it, did nothing. Instead they tried to carry on as though nothing was wrong, when there was at least one thing fundamentally wrong, that they could ignore that a member of their own was sexually cybering children who worked in Congress as pages. So much for their push on family values and their self appointed righteousness.

Billy T
10-08-06, 06:32 PM
I do not expect all to agree with me that whatever Folie and consenting adults want to do with their sex organs and orifices is OK, if done in private. That is clearly not the issue and perhaps nothing against the law has been done.

The issue is the cover up and the failure of the Congress, especially the leadership thereof, to act "in locus parentus" for the pages they had a duty to protect, while away they were away from home.

Baron Max
10-08-06, 06:32 PM
Even if Foley gets away with it and is not charged,...

Charged with what? The FBI and the Justice Dept still, after all this time, can't figure out what law has been violated. And that was noted on today's evening news. So ..."gets away with it.." means .....what, exactly? What's he "getting away" with???


...there was at least one thing fundamentally wrong, that they could ignore that a member of their own was sexually cybering children who worked in Congress as pages.

Fundamentally wrong? Ooh, that's a charged term, ain't it? :)

Is that against the law ...or is it just that some see it as "inappropriate"? And I'm wondering who makes that decision ...should it be something like what occured in Salem in the 1700 witch hunts, where anyone could make accusations, and they'd hound the "witch", then hang her? That's what it was in Salem ...deemed "inappropriate" behavior!

How does ethics come to be defined in a society? And how does "inappropriate" come to be defined in a society? What the fuck is "inappropriate", and to whom?

Is it "inappropriate" for young girls to wear revealing, sexually suggestive outfits ...showing belly skin and tit tatoos?

Is it "inappropriate" to publish magazines showing fully nude women and men in sexually-charged photo layouts?

I don't know ...I don't know how it all works, but I do know that it ain't gonna' be easy to get everyone to agree on what's "inappropriate" behavior for or about anything. What'chu think? Is it "inappropriate" for underage girls to wear sexually suggestive clothes and go to parties to give blowjobs to the boys? Those boys probaby don't think so!! :)

Hey, wait ....I got an idea ....let's just let Bells decide on any and all behavior, then prosecute according to how hot and pissed off she gets?!

Baron Max

PS - you lied to me, Bells ...you said that law had been enacted!

Baron Max
10-08-06, 06:34 PM
The issue is the cover up...

Covering up what? That Foley wrote some odd, sexually suggestive emails? Is that a crime?


...and the failure of the Congress, especially the leadership thereof, to act "in locus parentus" for the pages they had a duty to protect, while away they were away from home.

Were any pages harmed in any way? So ...protect them from what?

Baron Max

Bells
10-08-06, 07:22 PM
Charged with what? The FBI and the Justice Dept still, after all this time, can't figure out what law has been violated. And that was noted on today's evening news. So ..."gets away with it.." means .....what, exactly? What's he "getting away" with???

I guess Foley will most probably get away with it because he knew the law inside out and he knew just how far he could go before he breached it.

Baron, if you do not have a problem with a 52 year old man trying to get into the pants of children, and doing all he can do it but just stopping short (or managing to stop it so he doesn't get caught), then that is your perogative. Maybe you partake in that kind of thing as well and so will find every excuse you can to defend it, who the hell knows. But it seems you, who is always upset when your hard earned tax dollars isn't being put to good use, have been duped. Because your tax dollars have been paying for a 52 year old pervert to try and use his position, wage and privileges to get off hitting on teenagers. Hell he's even gone so far as to cyber during a voting session in Congress. But hey, again, if you're into that kind of thing, of course you're not going to have a problem with it.


Is that against the law ...or is it just that some see it as "inappropriate"? And I'm wondering who makes that decision ...should it be something like what occured in Salem in the 1700 witch hunts, where anyone could make accusations, and they'd hound the "witch", then hang her? That's what it was in Salem ...deemed "inappropriate" behavior!
You tell me. You think it is inappropriate for anyone to have sex unless they're doing so to have a child. But Foley sending emails and text messages to a child discussing the length of the kids penis and whether he was horny or not, and how he wants to take those pants off him and help him relieve himself of his 'horniness', hell that's fine as far as you are concerned. Not inappropriate or bad at all. After all, as far as you are concerned, it's all good as long as 1) he does not get caught and 2) if he does get caught, as long as he has gone as far as he can have but has not broken the law.

And again with the witch hunts? Salem was not about 'inappropriate' behaviour you ignorant fool. It was about religious nutters who had had some bad wheat and who assumed that anyone who was slightly different or who say for example had a birthmark, was somehow a witch and therefore should be put to death.


How does ethics come to be defined in a society? And how does "inappropriate" come to be defined in a society? What the fuck is "inappropriate", and to whom?
Hey again, if you think it's fine for a 52 year old man to send children emails asking for naked photos of themselves, penis measurements, discussing the kids penis length and asking them to measure it for him, asking them if he's making them horny and wishing he could take their pants off, is not somehow 'inappropriate' for you, then you obviously approve of said behaviour. If you think that a political party trying to hide such actions by one of their members, all the while touting family and religious righteousness as being the norm or what is right and appropriate, then that is again your prerogative. If you think that an elected member of Congress should be able to use the tax dollars he's paid with to send children such emails and messages, again, good for you. However, it would seem that you are in a minority. Because anyone in their right mind would see such actions and behaviour as being not only inappropriate but also down right sick and disgusting.


Is it "inappropriate" for young girls to wear revealing, sexually suggestive outfits ...showing belly skin and tit tatoos?
What does that have to do with this issue? How does a girl wearing a skimpy outfit have anything to do with a 52 year old man hitting on kids on the internet?


Is it "inappropriate" to publish magazines showing fully nude women and men in sexually-charged photo layouts?
Refer to above as to how this is related to the present discussion.


I don't know ...I don't know how it all works, but I do know that it ain't gonna' be easy to get everyone to agree on what's "inappropriate" behavior for or about anything. What'chu think? Is it "inappropriate" for underage girls to wear sexually suggestive clothes and go to parties to give blowjobs to the boys? Those boys probaby don't think so!!
Again, how does a girl going to a party to give a boy a blowjob have anything to do with the present discussion. No not everyone will agree on what is appropriate and what is not. However I can say it's a pretty safe bet that the majority of people think that what Foley has done is inappropriate and kind of sick and perverted. Unless that person is Baron it seems.


Hey, wait ....I got an idea ....let's just let Bells decide on any and all behavior, then prosecute according to how hot and pissed off she gets?!
LOL! You really want me to delve into your posting past in here and from some other forum you have participated in and remind you of all the crap you've come out with against people's rights even if the law is on their side? Trust me Baron, you do not.

Read through this thread Baron and read through the opinions of people in the papers in regards to this issue. You appear to be the only one defending Foley. That says a lot about you Baron.

Baron Max
10-08-06, 07:27 PM
Maybe you partake in that kind of thing as well...

Fuck you, you rotten, no good, flithy, stinkin' cunt!!!! I hope your cunt gets infected, rots and then painfully falls out onto the sidewalk and thousands of pedestrians walk all over it!

Fuck you, you stinkin' bitch .....you don't know how to care on a discussion without being using nasty, rotten, fuckin', personal accusations!!!! ...just like you're doin' against Foley and probably others!!

Fuck you!!

Baron Max

Bells
10-08-06, 07:34 PM
Fuck you, you rotten, no good, flithy, stinkin' cunt!!!! I hope your cunt gets infected, rots and then painfully falls out onto the sidewalk and thousands of pedestrians walk all over it!

Fuck you, you stinkin' bitch .....you don't know how to care on a discussion without being using nasty, rotten, fuckin', personal accusations!!!! ...just like you're doin' against Foley and probably others!!

Fuck you!!

Baron Max

My my. Look how defensive you are...

So what Foley has done is wrong after all huh?

Baron Max
10-08-06, 07:37 PM
Fuck you, Bells! I hope your cunt rots and falls out!

Personal accusations in post is supposed to be a no-no here, just like you claim writing emails is a no-no .....but you abide by one, disregard the other. Fuck you, you flithy cunt.

and I supose I'll get banned for this, ....then you can spout your bullshit without anyone to disargree. And your witch hunt will be successful at sciforums!!!

Baron Max

Bells
10-08-06, 07:47 PM
Ah so you really do not approve of what he has done?

And what have I accused you of Baron? You have defended Foley right from the start, so the next logical question would have been why. To defend what he has done would be to approve of what he has done Baron. That is something I have been trying to get through to you throughout this thread, and something you have kept on missing.

As to your being banned, I do hope you do not get banned. After all, who would defend Foley then?

In regards to your language and overblown reaction, again, I expected it from you. I never expected you to behave any differently as you have behaved as such in the past. As to my reproductive organs falling out and rotting, how nice of you to say so. It's nice to see that I had been right about you all along.

Baron Max
10-08-06, 07:50 PM
Fuck you, Bells!!!! Has your rotten, stinkin' cunt fallen out yet?!

Go on about your fuckin' witch hunt, you flity cunt! I ain't readin' your stinkin', accusational, inaccurate fuckiin' "added hominy" post no fuckin' more! Fuck you!

Baron Max

Neildo
10-08-06, 09:15 PM
LoL, geez..

Anyhow, I hear Foley is moving to the Netherlands and plans to run as head candidate for their pedophile party..

- N

Bells
10-08-06, 09:38 PM
LOL indeed. Seems that any question as to why he kept saying sending sexual emails to children, isn't really that bad, is kind of a bad thing after all. My guess after that diatribe is that he votes Republican. ;)

Anywho, back to Foley and his party's idiocy..


The head of the Republican House campaign committee apologized Saturday for not catching Rep. Mark Foley in alleged lies about his Internet exchanges with teen pages.

Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-New York, issued the apology in a TV commercial aired in his Buffalo-area district.

He also reiterated his assertion that he told House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, about Foley's behavior in the spring.

---------------------------------------------------

Reynolds said in his commercial that didn't learn about the sexually explicit messages until last week. Reynolds said those exchanges, which he dubbed "worse than anything I had heard before," prompted him to force Foley to resign "immediately."

On Monday, Reynolds said that Rep. Rodney Alexander earlier this year told him about Foley's e-mails to a Louisiana teenager. A Louisiana Republican, Alexander sponsored the teen when the boy served as a page in 2005.

Reynolds said he told Hastert about the e-mails because he thought it was appropriate to inform his "supervisor" about allegations of possible sexual misconduct.
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/07/foley.fallout/index.html)


Hmm ok, so the email he said he'd originally seen sent to the Louisiana teenager contained some comments that even the child had found to be 'sick' and disturbing enough that he forwarded the email to Alexander. And yet Reynolds failed to look further into it? Trying to pass the buck onto others saying he'd assumed that they were looking into it does not count.

Had they reacted then and there and forced him to resign then and there, and at the very least removed him from co-chairmanship of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, their voters and the public in general would have probably applauded them. By hiding what Foley had done and trying to stop it from getting out into the public, they have only shown that they were soley concerned with their very position in power and cared nothing for what Foley had done. They wanted this to stay hidden and in doing so, would have happily allowed Foley to continue on his merry way, all while turning a blind eye and pushing their families first agenda to the general public. They had the chance to take the moral high ground but ignored it to save their own political hide, resulting in their now facing a huge voter backlash from the very families they were trying to woo.

mountainhare
10-12-06, 09:07 PM
Bells:


Baron, if you do not have a problem with a 52 year old man trying to get into the pants of children, and doing all he can do it but just stopping short (or managing to stop it so he doesn't get caught), then that is your perogative. Maybe you partake in that kind of thing as well and so will find every excuse you can to defend it, who the hell knows.

Wow, just wow. You make comments such as that, and when Baron is successfully baited, he's the one who is banned. Unbelievable.

Quite simply, you're engaging in a whopping straw man. Baron Max wasn't 'defending' the behaviour that Foley has been accused of, but merely questioning the legitimacy of your logic. Even though Baron Max is a complete asshole, your post was a deliberate attempt to bait. I'm surprised that the mods couldn't see this. Then again, I guess it's hard to see anything when you have your nose buried in the collective asscracks of certain veterans on this forum.

Billy T
10-13-06, 03:00 PM
... Even though Baron Max is a complete asshole....I disagree. He is only "half assed" - half the time he is refereshingly direct, blunt etc.

PS to BM - with friends like me to defend you, what else could you wish for?