Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 No I don't assume. I know that he asked a 16-year-old boy, that he *knew* was 16, to measure his dick, how he masturbated and blew his load, how often he masturbated, if he had a hardon, and other such things. What the hell would you call that if its not pedo? 799870[/snapback] I'd call him a pervert. But to be a pedophile, he'd have to have actually DONE those things with the kid. Look, I think he's disgusting, but WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 9, 2006 Author Share Posted October 9, 2006 I'd call him a pervert. But to be a pedophile, he'd have to have actually DONE those things with the kid. Look, I think he's disgusting, but WTF? 799883[/snapback] Nope, sorry. According to the American Physiactric Assocation, pedophilia does not have to involve an act of sex. There merely has to be the presence of urges or fantasies. I'm using pedophilia as a broad term here, as its the general wide-used term for persons under 18. It might actually be better described as ephebophilia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Nope, sorry. According to the American Physiactric Assocation, pedophilia does not have to involve an act of sex. There merely has to be the presence of urges or fantasies. I'm using pedophilia as a broad term here, as its the general wide-used term for persons under 18. It might actually be better described as ephebophilia. 799923[/snapback] When I think of a pedophile, I think of a guy who's trolling for 15 and unders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 I'm reminded of the oldie, "Why don't Congressmen use bookmarks?" They just bend their pages over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 When I think of a pedophile, I think of a guy who's trolling for 15 and unders. 799942[/snapback] I just hope that a 15 year old doesn't come out against Foley. Then you'll have to adjust your definition to 14 and under. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 What's the difference between Barney Frank and a Fenway Frank? They come in different buns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 You know the sad thing is, I bet the folks here probably thought it was okay for Travis Henry to molest the 13 year old like he did. Be an interesting search to see who is appalled at this and "forgave" Travis. Might tell us who is political and who is a hypocrite. Let's see, I have said they were both disgusting. Anyone want to look up some of these other guys opinions on both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 You know the sad thing is, I bet the folks here probably thought it was okay for Travis Henry to molest the 13 year old like he did. Be an interesting search to see who is appalled at this and "forgave" Travis. Might tell us who is political and who is a hypocrite. Let's see, I have said they were both disgusting. Anyone want to look up some of these other guys opinions on both? 800311[/snapback] The same right wing people defending the child rapist Foley defended the child rapist Travis Henry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 The same right wing people defending the child rapist Foley defended the child rapist Travis Henry. 800490[/snapback] Interesting aside. You're probably an exception to this, but I wonder how many people now sreaming about Congressional failure to do something outside of its jurisdiction on Foley, prior to any crime being committed are the ones screaming loudest about feds snooping into phone records before any crime was committed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 Interesting aside. You're probably an exception to this, but I wonder how many people now sreaming about Congressional failure to do something outside of its jurisdiction on Foley, prior to any crime being committed are the ones screaming loudest about feds snooping into phone records before any crime was committed? 800574[/snapback] bull sh--. When they found about about his trolling years ago, why couldn't they call him in and tell him to knock it off or get some help prior to any crimes being committed. Several Republican Congressman were told of improper activity, and they properly passed it on the the leadership. The leadership should have called him in and told him to knock it off or get help or face the consequences. This is where the breakdown occurred. What appears to have happened is that the leadership was notified and did nothing other than continuing to accept his money and helping to keep him as an incumbent. To make matters worse, they let him carry on as the co-chair of the Missing and Exploited Childrens' Caucus. End result: the leadership chose not to address the problem and they are now paying the price for their inaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 The leadership should have called him in and told him to knock it off or get help or face the consequences.800678[/snapback] Except that this is precisely what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 Except that this is precisely what happened. 800693[/snapback] Those in the leadership all state that they knew nothing about it until recently, which is quickly starting to look like lies. Fordham was aware of Foley's proclivities when he was Foleys's chief of staff and has been Reynold's Chief of staff. Are you suggesting that Fordham never told Reynolds what he had heard about Foley? Fordham also told Hastert's chief of staff about it a long time ago. Hastert shares a house with his chief of staff in DC and commutes with him to Chicago on weekends. Do you honestly believe that this never came up between them?? Had they handled it when they first knew about it, it wouldn't be blowing up in their faces now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 Those in the leadership all state that they knew nothing about it until recently, which is quickly starting to look like lies. Fordham was aware of Foley's proclivities when he was Foleys's chief of staff and has been Reynold's Chief of staff. Are you suggesting that Fordham never told Reynolds what he had heard about Foley? Fordham also told Hastert's chief of staff about it a long time ago. Hastert shares a house with his chief of staff in DC and commutes with him to Chicago on weekends. Do you honestly believe that this never came up between them?? Had they handled it when they first knew about it, it wouldn't be blowing up in their faces now. 800698[/snapback] 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:: The accounts did not include accusations of overtly sexual advances and did not involve e-mail or instant messages of the sort that surfaced last week, Mr. Fordham said. Instead, they encompassed reports that Mr. Foley had been “way too friendly” toward the pages, he said. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 bull sh--. When they found about about his trolling years ago, why couldn't they call him in and tell him to knock it off or get some help prior to any crimes being committed. Several Republican Congressman were told of improper activity, and they properly passed it on the the leadership. 800678[/snapback] So you agree with taking proactive steps outside legal boundaries before a crime is committed. Just clarifying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 The same right wing people defending the child rapist Foley defended the child rapist Travis Henry. 800490[/snapback] Rape is a terrible crime, and I support the death penalty for anyone who's clearly guilty of it. What Travis Henry did--consensual sex with some underage girl--is a crime, but clearly doesn't warrant the death penalty rape deserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Rape is a terrible crime, and I support the death penalty for anyone who's clearly guilty of it. What Travis Henry did--consensual sex with some underage girl--is a crime, but clearly doesn't warrant the death penalty rape deserves. 801913[/snapback] Consensual sex with a child????? It's not like she was even 16. What the hell does a 13 year old really know about the risks? At what age is it no longer consensual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 11, 2006 Share Posted October 11, 2006 Consensual sex with a child????? It's not like she was even 16. What the hell does a 13 year old really know about the risks? At what age is it no longer consensual? 801987[/snapback] What Travis Henry did was a crime. But to understand the magnitude of the crime, you have to look at its effect on the victim. I've known victims of actual rapes, and the sense of helplessness, pain, and degradation doesn't go away. It's a form of permanent emotional maiming, and the appropriate punishment for someone low enough to do this to a woman is death. I'd be more than willing to push the button on the electric chair myself. As that rapist looked into my eyes, he wouldn't see an ounce of hesitation or mercy. None. While Travis embarrassed himself and the team, what he's guilty of doesn't warrant that kind of treatment. The girl was 15 years old, she appeared to be older than she was, and she lied about her age. I get the impression that Travis wasn't the first, or perhaps even the tenth, person with whom she'd had sex. Nor have I heard anything which would lead me to believe Travis misled her with false promises, or used sophisticated seduction techniques. Instead, from what I can tell, she more or less threw herself at him during a one-time casual encounter. I doubt this instance of sex was much different for her on an emotional level than the other instances of legal, consensual sex she had with those closer to her own age. Grown men have no business having sex with underage girls. But as unacceptable as this behavior is, it shouldn't be lumped together with the act of forcing a girl or woman into sex. The latter is an act of predation and brutality, and should always be punished by death. Women shouldn't have to fear walking on the streets at night, or walking through parking lots, or other actions which men take for granted. The existence of rapists denies them the freedom that is their right, while leaving victims of rape improperly avenged. What Travis did was bad also, but not bad enough for me to see him as a hardened enemy of decent society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts