Crap Throwing Monkey

Well...you left me no recourse. If I've asked you once, I've asked you a thousand times: stop sending me this perverted sh--, Mr. Foley. (And you're the one that filled it anyway, numbnuts. )

Actually, Clinton's foreign policy aspired to "suck". It was nonexistent.

Look in the respective constitutions or whatever. Of course, no one ever follows them anymore, anyway...but that'll tell you what their responsibilities should be. And I personally think that the way to hold these idiots accountable is by voting them out. I think that's part and parcel of a democratic system. I also think one of the benefits of a parlimentary system is not having to wait for an election; you can just call for a vote of no confidence and throw the !@#$ers out whenever. But in the American system...technically, you're stuck with who you're stuck with until you stick yourself with someone else, unless they break the law and get impeached. Accountability for job performance, though...strictly through the electoral process.

In other words, the Repigs are looking out for big business again. Has Goldman Sachs added North Korean plutonium futures to the GSCI yet?

No, Fordham was aware that Foley was overly friendly with the pages. He specifically said that he had no indication of any emails or IMs of a sexual nature when he went to Hastert. This is according to the New York Times on October 5th:: Furthermore, the reports say that Palmer (Hastert's chief of staff) and Jeff Trandahl (Clerk of the House) counseled Foley on his "overly friendly" (Palmer's and Fordham's words) behavior towards the pages, and that Hastert got involved directly when it became known only a year ago that some of his communication with the pages was sexual, and that the "coverup" a year ago was at the behest of the page's parents, who wished the issue to be kept private (to the point of not providing the complete text of the emails to Palmer, merely excerpts). And, in case you're wondering, this isn't FoxSnooze's propaganda spin. This is as reported in the NY Times and Washington Post...two papers with a decidedly liberal editorial bent that are no doubt salivating at the thought of roasting Hastert on a spit.

Except that this is precisely what happened.

It was widely reported at the time. You should be able to find it at any media outlet of your choice (though I recommend staying away from FoxSnooze in this case) that keeps it's stories archived for 10+ years online.

No...but I'm high as a kite on sinus medication, so I plead pharmacological incapacity.

Yeah. The men's department.

Who the hell else would say that about Rutgers?

I would also like to say, for the record, that I specifically told Mike Mularkey to go !@#$ himself...

That's a joke, right? Because it reads like a joke. Even for Foley, that's just weird...

Here you go, Sue...www.google.com

I !@#$ing hate it when I agree with you. But I agree with you. "Army of One" was misguided as sh--. Right up there with Shinseki's "everyone gets to wear a Special Forces beret, because we're ALL special" nonsense.

bull sh--. Absolute, utter, unmitigated bull sh--. No way in hell you golfed a 79.

I believe it's a vitamin B deficiency, to tell the truth...

We try to catch it for lunch at work every day. It's great comedy.

Regardless...whatever play was called, the snap sucked. Punt or fake punt, a bad snap is going to !@#$ it up. But let's all blame Jauron for the bad snap. Jesus...you people...

Because they're still investigating, and the applicable federal law is FUBAR. Of course, now that ABC broke the story, the investigation's FUBAR as well. Personally, I think the producers of the story ABC should be charged with hindering an investigation...

Not under DC law or federal law when it comes to sexual matters. Nor, as some nutcases want to pretend, is sending emails or IMs rape. No matter how morally repugnant you might find this case, calling it "child rape" is two lies in as many words.

The Tao Te Ching: Ruling the universe is like cooking a small fish. I thought today's game was a prime example of this philosophy. The Bears are most definately NOT 33 points better than the Bills.

I believe, if you listened carefully during the second quarter, you could just hear "buffan00 is a !@#$in' idjimit" over the sounds of the Chicago fans celebrating touchdowns...

Hey, dax...this is why.

Uhhh...yeah. I'm not defending Foley, I'm criticizing the idiots who are referencing laws they haven't even read. What Foley did is, as far as I can tell, not illegal under federal law (or at worst it's very arguable, given the screwed-up legislation). Should it be? Absolutely. As should a sexual harrassment policy be written into the House Ethics manual (yes, believe it or not, although every company in America with more than 20 employees has a written sexual harrassment policy that clearly defines what is and is not sexual harrassment and outlines the punishments for such...the House's "ethics" don't include one. ) Too bad most of the ass holes on the Hill are too busy playing partisan politics and chasing the issue du jour to be bothered to actually do their !@#$ing jobs. But then...ultimately, that's our fault. We elected these incompetent pricks.

IM falls under interstate commerce, being as it's over the internet. That's the gist of 4472...and for interstate commerce (i.e. as defined in 4472) purposes, "minor" is defined as "under 18". 109A, however, is the federal statutes dealing with sexual abuse...which sets the age of consent at 16 and over. So under federal law, you can - with consent - !@#$ a 16 year old Congressional page up the ass if you want, but you can't send dirty emails. It is a truly stupid set of laws, made all the worse by the simplicity of writing them correctly. All they had to do was write in to 4472 wording akin to "Section blah-blah-blah of 109A is amended as follows: change "16" to "18". They do that in plenty of other places (raising the penalty for abusing a child from 10 to 15 or 20 years, for example). They just never bothered to make sure the definition of "minor" is consistent throughout the law. Divining the reasons why the law is so screwed up is left as an exercise to the reader...but here's a hint: consider which people wrote the !@#$ing law and why. But, as KTFABD said, Foley sent some of the IMs from Pensacola. And Florida law is clear: "minor" is "under 18". THAT makes at least some of them cut-and-dried illegal.