Crap Throwing Monkey

The age of consent is 16 in DC. It's 18 in Florida, so if he sent even one email from Florida, he's rightfully !@#$ed. But by federal law, it's 16 (Title 19, Section 109A) unless you're soliciting via the internet, in which case it's 18 (HR 4472), and you have to go into the federal sex offenders registry. The federal law in this case is SO stupid, I can't even begin to explain it. Basically, Foley's violating federal law by emailing the pages, but had he actually molested them...well, that would have been legal, but he still has to admit to the federal government that he commited a crime, even though he didn't. That's probably why the FBI is still "investigating" Foley but hasn't arrested him yet: no one can figure out if what he did was actually a crime or not. The applicable federal law is !@#$ed up beyond belief.

You forgot the 3 that argue that the light bulb didn't need to be changed, the 5 that argue that the light bulb you left on the shelf is better than the one you put in, and the 1 th threaten a spearing contest...

He's right about those eyes, though. Never seen that deep a color green...

Yeah. Because stock markets should always go up and hit consecutive new highs. They should never, ever, ever go down. You really don't understand market economics, do you?

"Little boy"? Sixteen year olds may be minors*, but they are NOT "little boys". *And in this case, the stupid-ass conflicting federal statues aren't even clear that 16 year olds ARE minors.

How can you even tell the difference between a conservative gay and a conservative heterosexual? They're both uptight and repressed...

I'm sorry...I like the Packers, I really do, but... Trade up to take a punter in the third round, who doesn't even last two years.

By the way...which union? It's not NEA or AFT affiliated, is it?

Yes, I read the article from the Times. And my complaint isn't that it's an article from the Times, my complaint is that it's an incomplete article. And misleading. It overstates the weighting reduction of gasoline by half (because, while they reduced unleaded gasoline, they added reformulated gasoline to the index, which is in part offsetting), and doesn't even begin to mention that the weighting of oil was increased by about 50%... ...yet, oil's dropped 20% over the same time that Goldman-Sachs has driven down the price of oil [sic]. One would expect, if GS reducing the relative importance of unleaded gasoline futures in the GSCI depressed gasoilne prices, that doing the opposite would have an opposite effect - namely, that increasing the relagive weight of oil futures would increase oil prices. Clearly, this is not the effect. Ergo, your argument is specious.

Ditto. Particularly when senior management goes right for the throat like that. Every time I've seen that happen (and the once it's happened to me), it's been someone pursuing a vendetta. I'd get your resume polished, and talk to your union about what to do if there's any further actions against you.

You'll always be the Stay-Puft Marshmallow to me, Ed.

He's funny about 10% of the time. That's slightly better than I manage, so I can't complain. And it's FAR better than you manage, Mr. Stay-Puft.

But it's also a week away by VABills' reckoning... Now I'm confused...

He's good. I'll give him that.

You know, the shooter in Amish country wanted to molest young girls, too. That seems awfully coincidental, coming on top of the Foley story, coming so soon before elections. He was probably a Democratic operative...

Ya gotta admit, though...that was pretty !@#$ing funny.

My biggest question is: why is it on before 5pm tomorrow? "Less than 24 hours?"

Certainly explains your earlier post...

Maybe if they read them occasionally...

My parents had some really good parenting books when I was a kid. Of course, they were most effective when I was being paddled with them...

Real tough. I suggest going with the one that knows something about discipline...

Gotta love the LAPD. Couldn't frame a guilty man.

So your knowledge of the reweighting of the GSCI is based on a single NYT article written six weeks after the reweighting? If you don't even know the components of the GSCI, but claim to know that the readjustment of a single component of the GSCI adversely affected a single commodity market, I'd have to consider your hypothesis specious, at best.

"Hastert and the rest". The implicit assumption that knowledge of Foley must be distributed along party lines is disgusting. Nothing more than the same lascivious attempt to play party politics with the issue that so many of us have been complaining about to begin with. Business as usual in the GOP...

True, that. Though there is the "What happens in our club, stays in our club" factor. There's enough skeletons in enough closets on the Hill that more than a few people would worry "If this story about X gets out, will my dirty little secret go public, too?" I would expect any day now to see reprisal "leaks" on Democratic members of Congress. It's hard to keep a story like this "institutionalized" within a small group with high turnover, like Congressional pages. For the pages to keep it secret from year to year, but keep the new pages aware each year, it would have to be a really open secret...enough so that everyone knew.