Florida Congressman sends dirty email to teens

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I think people believe that more than you think. Hell, you saw the outpouring of so called 'value voters' in the 2004 election moving en masse to the polls for the republican party.

Religion/Morals are going to be associated with the Republican party as long as the regilious left is continuing to be pushed aside in favor of the right, further dividing the 2 parties.

I have been overestimating the intelligence of my countrymen lately, so you may be right.

Personally, as someone who definitely leans to the right politically, I find just as many morally empty people in the evangelical movement as I do in the secular progressive movement.

It's all just word games.

[Calgaryborn]

I'm not sure if Foley has broken the law. It doesn't appear that the boy was his page but rather another congressmans. If that is the case it might be hard to get him for sexual harassment. Also, I don't know the age of consent in the Capital. The boys parents and presumably the boy asked for the matter to be dropped. I don't know if a prosecutor could charge him if the victim doesn't want to pursue it in court. In Canada I don't think there would be a case because our age of consent is so low and he wasn't directly working for the congressman.

If the victim and his parents requested the matter dropped and there was no reason to believe that he could be charged I could see the Republicans letting it rest with perhaps a private conversation with Foley warning of consequences if such a thing happened again.

I personally am more interested in the timing of the ABC news release. Weren't they the same station that released the false Bush national guard story just before the last federal election? I wonder if they had a political motive in choosing the timing of this story.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

I'm no lawyer, but is there no legal distinction between age of consent and ability to consent? I have a hard time believing the age of consent is 16, but even if it is, the law should have some way of recognizing that a 16 year old congressional page doesn't have the leverage in the relationship to consent to anything in this kind of a case, because of the huge power imbalance. The assumption behind consent has to be that the person has the power to say "no"--and just as importantly, knows that he/she has that power.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I'm no lawyer, but is there no legal distinction between age of consent and ability to consent? I have a hard time believing the age of consent is 16, but even if it is, the law should have some way of recognizing that a 16 year old congressional page doesn't have the leverage in the relationship to consent to anything in this kind of a case, because of the huge power imbalance. The assumption behind consent has to be that the person has the power to say "no"--and just as importantly, knows that he/she has that power.

There is in Canada and I would imagine there would be something in the States as well. The thing is the boy wasn't working for the Congressman at the time of the E-mails. It doesn't sound like the youth ever worked directly for him but rather probably another Congressman.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I personally am more interested in the timing of the ABC news release. Weren't they the same station that released the false Bush national guard story just before the last federal election? I wonder if they had a political motive in choosing the timing of this story.

Oh yeah for sure, the media is much more interesting and important than the sexual nature of a relationship between a 54 year old politician and a child. Really, we should be focussing on the media in this instance. That is much more important. What are their motivations for reporting on this true story? Why didn't they report it before they knew about it?

It was CBS that "broke" the Bush story. That doesn't matter though. They are all the same. A bunch of godless commie *******s in the media raking a perfectly good Christian man over the coals just because he's a pederast.

Why don't they look at all the good things he's done?

Anyhow, apparently it was the drink that made him do it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2518173&page=1

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Anyhow, apparently it was the drink that made him do it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2518173&page=1

I saw that today and just about puked.

What a freaking coward.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Oh yeah for sure, the media is much more interesting and important than the sexual nature of a relationship between a 54 year old politician and a child. Really, we should be focussing on the media in this instance. That is much more important. What are their motivations for reporting on this true story? Why didn't they report it before they knew about it?

It was CBS that "broke" the Bush story. That doesn't matter though. They are all the same. A bunch of godless commie *******s in the media raking a perfectly good Christian man over the coals just because he's a pederast.

Why don't they look at all the good things he's done?

Anyhow, apparently it was the drink that made him do it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2518173&page=1

The Congressman has stepped down. The Police were informed about the allegations by the Republican party long before it was revealed to the general public by the news story. To date there is no evidence that Foley committed a crime; At least no one has indicated that possibility. A 54 year old man trying to pick up a 16 year old boy(or girl for that matter) is repulsive but, that doesn't mean that it is illegal.

As for Foley being a good Christian man: God is clear in His scriptures that he hates sodomy. Conservatives as a rule don't condone immorality just because they like a person's politics. Situation ethics is more a plank of those godless Democrats and the main stream media that serves them.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The Congressman has stepped down. The Police were informed about the allegations by the Republican party long before it was revealed to the general public by the news story. To date there is no evidence that Foley committed a crime; At least no one has indicated that possibility. A 54 year old man trying to pick up a 16 year old boy(or girl for that matter) is repulsive but, that doesn't mean that it is illegal.

I am really surprised anyone has the guts to defend this prevert by saying "that doesn't mean it's illegal". I am certainly not surprised that you are trying to change the subject and make this a story about the devillish liberal media, but to even suggest that the story should have been ignored because he might not have technically broken any laws is pretty bold.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

God is clear in His scriptures that he hates sodomy. Conservatives as a rule don't condone immorality just because they like a person's politics. Situation ethics is more a plank of those godless Democrats and the main stream media that serves them.

Ha ha. I know you aren't joking, but that is effing brilliant stuff.

Conservatives as a rule don't condone immorality because they like a person's politics, eh? First of all, you are condoning immorality just by trying to defend this guy. Second of all, if conservatives aren't supporting immorality, who exactly are all those people that still support Bush and his crowd of liars?

[Flash Walken]

Anyone else molest 16 year old boys when they're drunk, but are completely heterosexual and monogomous when sober?

I thought I was the only one.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

God is clear in His scriptures that he hates sodomy.

And here I thought God was about love and forgiveness. Stupid me, I guess.

I'd be interested to know which "scriptures" you're talking about. Sodomy didn't seem to be a central concern of Christ's in the gospels.

At any rate, Rouge is right--you are changing the subject a little. To me there are two important stories here: the exploitation of a minor or minors by a 54 year old man in a position of power. And the possibility that those god-fearing Republicans around Foley knew about it and did nothing to protect other minors from this pervert. I'm not saying they did that--but the public deserves to know who found out what when and what actions were taken.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by fotze

and since that isn't my god, that god can suck on my short and curlies. As soon as someone says "God says..." to me the argument is finished because I have absolutely no respect for what this fictional character thinks. You may as well say Dumbledore is against sodomy, or the boogeyman hates blow jobs, or goblins hate females kissing, or pixies hate foreplay or orcs hate felching or the samsquamtch is anti-nutfondling.

Well, that has to be the post of the year.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

What a freaking coward.

Pretty much the MO of those types though isn't it?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Pretty much the MO of those types though isn't it?

I think so. It's not too often one of these guys says "yes, I am a perv. Please put me in the stocks and fling mud at me." I say we fling mud at him anyway.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I think so. It's not too often one of these guys says "yes, I am a perv. Please put me in the stocks and fling mud at me." I say we fling mud at him anyway.

Mud?

At least let it be maggot infested fruit or something.

Maybe some manure.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I am really surprised anyone has the guts to defend this prevert by saying "that doesn't mean it's illegal". I am certainly not surprised that you are trying to change the subject and make this a story about the devillish liberal media, but to even suggest that the story should have been ignored because he might not have technically broken any laws is pretty bold.

Who's defending him. There is a huge difference regarding how the Republican Caucus needed to react to this allegation if a law was broken. Maybe one was but, I haven't heard of it yet.

Also, the question of whether the Republican Caucus acted appropriately in this matter hasn't been answered yet. You've obviously have condemned them already. I choose to wait and see. We know the Leader of the house knew about the E-mails but we don't know how specific his knowledge was and what he did about the situation.

Regarding the reporting of the story: Of course it should be reported and immediately. My question is: Did they report it immediately or did they wait until weeks before the election? This close to the election the Republicans are not going to have time to fully recover from the blow. Even if the party acted appropriately that won't be definitively known until after the election. Unfortunately for many, the Republicans won't be given the benefit of the doubt. The House could be lost based upon a presumption of collusion that may be wrong. I suppose the Democrats won't care how they won as long as they gain power but, in my mind if this story was sat on until it was believed it would inflict the most damage to the Republicans that goes beyond poor ethics. It is treason.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Yeah, that would be terrible if those corrupt, power-hungry democrats were to oust the righteous and well-intentioned Republicans in this election cycle. Anyway, you can unbunch your knickers on that score. The Dems are so painfully bad at politics that they'll more than likely bugger this opportunity up too. Er... so to speak.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Yeah, that would be terrible if those corrupt, power-hungry democrats were to oust the righteous and well-intentioned Republicans in this election cycle. Anyway, you can unbunch your knickers on that score. The Dems are so painfully bad at politics that they'll more than likely bugger this opportunity up too. Er... so to speak.

These midterm elections are interesting.

It is no secret that I tend to vote Republican, but I do not vote straight down the party line. I voted for our current Governor, Kathleen Sebelius (D) and I will vote for her again next month because she's done a great job and because her opponent is an evangelical. I voted against our 'bad' R Senator, Sam Brownback in the last election because he is too far to the right. Conversely, I would vote for Pat Roberts, the other Republican Senator because of the way he has handled himself and represented the state of Kansas as a high ranking Senator. Same goes for my Congressman, Republican Todd Tiahrt.

I'm a native Montanan, and I follow the politics of that state as closely as I can. I am sincerely hoping that Jon Tester unseats the corrupt Conrad Burns. Tester is a Democrat, but he is also good for Montana...which is why any of these folks should get a vote in the first place.

That Montana Senate seat is one of the races that is in the national spotlight. It's kind of neat to watch.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Anyone else molest 16 year old boys when they're drunk, but are completely heterosexual and monogomous when sober?

I thought I was the only one.

You might be the only one.

Foley so far has been accused of sending inappropriate emails to at least one page. To my knowledge he isn't accused of touching anyone. It is also unclear if this page ever worked for him.

I do get your point about him obviously being a sodomite.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You might be the only one.

Foley so far has been accused of sending inappropriate emails to at least one page. To my knowledge he isn't accused of touching anyone. It is also unclear if this page ever worked for him.

I do get your point about him obviously being a sodomite.

The fact that those messages were transmitted over interstate telephone lines will have an effect.