GiantsOfAlbany Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Sounds like you're defending a child rapist now. Disgusting. 799415[/snapback] "There's no 'there' there." -Democratic Mantra- And four (4) weeks is way too much time on the clock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 If there is so much to this, why did the FBI take a look at it and did nothing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Talk to 16 yr olds often, they are VERY young people. And part of this is using thier ambition against them. These kids are obviously looking to rise in the world and Foley was powerful. This is simply dispicable. Someone posted this list on another web site and gees, does anyone see a patern? http://sandiego.craigslist.org/pol/215136845.html 799412[/snapback] It is descipable. He should lose his job for it and he has. No one is arguing that it's not. And yes, you're right, it's using their ambition against them. What it's not is rape, let alone child rape. He didn't even meet any of them that we know of. He didn't even shake their hand in an untoward manner as far as we know. To call it despicable is one thing, which it is, to call it child rape is just plain wrong. And I'm as big a liberal democrat as you'll find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Yeah, he overstated it, I wont' deny that. But you also understated it - its not as if the age of consent being 16 makes it okay. 799166[/snapback] Foley is a Grade A scumbag. Grown men are meant to leave 16 year olds alone. I don't think there's any way to say he's anything but a very creepy individual who basically engineering his life to be in a position to prey on teenagers. But I don't know how much effect this will end up having on the election. Are people really going to factor in Mark Foley when thinking about re-electing their own congressman? I guess they might, the way the facts in this case have completely gone out the window (see thread title). I also wonder if the Repugs had forced Foley to resign over those emails a year ago if they wouldn't have taken flack for "targetting gays." Seems like they had a few odd emails by one of their homosexual congressmen and there wasn't any obvious thing to do. Also the news is running this story that Foley did have sex with a former page.....when the page was 21. How the !@#$ is that news? "Gay Men Had Sex" is not a headline, for crying out loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 LOL! 16 year olds are children.799353[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 If there is so much to this, why did the FBI take a look at it and did nothing? 799438[/snapback] 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Sounds like you're defending a child rapist now. Disgusting. 799415[/snapback] Well, no children were involved. And no one was ever raped. But aside from those minor details, we're looking at a clear case of child rape. Foley is a pervert who sent sexual emails to 16 year old boys. So he should be treated and regarded as a pervert who sent sexual emails to 16 year old boys. Not a "child rapist." He's a douche bag. He used this job to meet and attempt to coerce 16 year olds into having sex with him by sending them perverse messages. He's basically a less successful version of that female teacher in Florida who actually did have sex with her high school students. He's a defective human being but not a "child rapist." If he was a 16 year old boy and had sex with another 16 year old boy, no one would give a rat's ass (maybe his parents would). Or if he was still a middle-aged congressman and had sex with another middle-aged man, no one would give a rat's ass. It's not "rape," it's sexual harassment of young people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 It's bad, it's dumb, it's gross, it may be horrible, it's not rape and nothing close to it. Have you talked to 16 year olds lately? Especially ones that are smart enough to be congressional pages? These "kids" know what is going on in the world. Yes, they are not adults, yes they make stupid choices, yes they are easily led. But it's not like talking to a seven year old you can entice into a car. These guys know what they're doing. 799374[/snapback] Would you say the same thing about a 16 year old girl and she was an intern for someone? And then imagine if that girl were your daughter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Would you say the same thing about a 16 year old girl and she was an intern for someone? And then imagine if that girl were your daughter... 799501[/snapback] If it were my daughter I would say the same thing. It was horrible and disgusting and despicable, and I'd want to beat the sh-- of out of the guy, and worse if he ever cae near her or touched her. Would I call it child rape for saying sexual inferences over the internet? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Well, no children were involved. And no one was ever raped. But aside from those minor details, we're looking at a clear case of child rape. Foley is a pervert who sent sexual emails to 16 year old boys. So he should be treated and regarded as a pervert who sent sexual emails to 16 year old boys. Not a "child rapist." He's a douche bag. He used this job to meet and attempt to coerce 16 year olds into having sex with him by sending them perverse messages. He's basically a less successful version of that female teacher in Florida who actually did have sex with her high school students. He's a defective human being but not a "child rapist." If he was a 16 year old boy and had sex with another 16 year old boy, no one would give a rat's ass (maybe his parents would). Or if he was still a middle-aged congressman and had sex with another middle-aged man, no one would give a rat's ass. It's not "rape," it's sexual harassment of young people. 799484[/snapback] I don't know about you but I am against child rapists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 The Republican are the most corrupt bunch this country has had in a while 799292[/snapback] ...or at least since the last time the Dems were in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Its looking increasingly like Chafee is in trouble, so Whitehouse is pretty set. 799356[/snapback] I get the Providence channels and I wouldn't say that by a longshot. Last poll I saw was 44-42 in favor of Whitehouse, well w/in the MoE. Chafee has the family name in RI; his father was a very popular (Dem) pol in the state. The advertising is probably what's to be expected with two candidates who're pretty close to each other in viewpoints. Whitehouse is running campaign ads that are mostly party-centric --- that speak of regaining control of the Senate and that to change the direction of the country, the leadership needs to change. But this is after he staked out his key issues and where he stands during the primary season. Chafee has been running low-ball ads featuring his soft voice and calm demeanor, where in spite of speaking for 30 seconds, he says nothing at all... "For months I was attacked by the right for being too liberal. Now I'm being attacked by the left for being too conservative. That puts me in the middle. [Fingerpoint toward the camera]. With you. It's only through clear thinking that the country's problems will be solved...." blah blah blah 'I approve this message.' He doesn't feel the need to actually say anything concrete. No joke, the commercials in RI are more than 50% political campaign ads. They're laying down some serious coin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 I get the Providence channels and I wouldn't say that by a longshot. Last poll I saw was 44-42 in favor of Whitehouse, well w/in the MoE. Chafee has the family name in RI; his father was a very popular (Dem) pol in the state. Thats old data actually, or of its not, its probably not from an independent pollster. Latest Rasmussen poll has it at Whitehouse 51-42. There was a USA Today/Gallup poll released on Friday that had a similar result (I think it was Whitehouse 50-42). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 On turn out, I read today, maybe in NYTimes, that the Dems have copied many of the successful strategies the GOP was using to increase turnout on election day by targeting individual voters instead of areas of consentration. 799407[/snapback] They do that every year, and every year the GOP comes up with a better strategy of driving out voters. The GOP is well ahead of the Democrats in campaigning at this point. And four (4) weeks is way too much time on the clock. 799431[/snapback] Did you actually read my response to your original post about this or do you just ignore other people when they refute what you say? Foley is a Grade A scumbag. Grown men are meant to leave 16 year olds alone. I don't think there's any way to say he's anything but a very creepy individual who basically engineering his life to be in a position to prey on teenagers. But I don't know how much effect this will end up having on the election. Are people really going to factor in Mark Foley when thinking about re-electing their own congressman? I guess they might, the way the facts in this case have completely gone out the window (see thread title). For typical Republican voters, not much effect will be had. There might be a little vote suppression, but it'll be seen by most GOP supporters as one man gone wrong rather then the whole party to blame. For typical Democratic voters, you will feel the effect of it firing up the base and lowering the Dems average of 15% defection rates. Democratic voters will see this as a corrupt Republican congress who initiated a coverup, and that we need to oust at any costs. True Independent voters are the ones that we really don't know what effect this will have. Are they going to view it as a party-wide scandal? Are they going to think that this is a single isolated case? Is this a straw that broke the camels back so to speak? I don't think anyone really knows yet what effect it will have on independents. I also wonder if the Repugs had forced Foley to resign over those emails a year ago if they wouldn't have taken flack for "targetting gays." Seems like they had a few odd emails by one of their homosexual congressmen and there wasn't any obvious thing to do. They should have covered their own ass better either way and done some more investigating into it, thats Hastert's biggest mistake here. He relies on an interview with the guy to settle it. Yeah, like he's going to tell you the truth Dennis, he's a congressman in the Public spotlight. Also the news is running this story that Foley did have sex with a former page.....when the page was 21. How the !@#$ is that news? "Gay Men Had Sex" is not a headline, for crying out loud. 799475[/snapback] While I don't agree with the argument, one could say that it goes to a pattern of him hitting on pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Democratic voters will see this as a corrupt Republican congress who initiated a coverup, and that we need to oust at any costs. 799831[/snapback] Oh, happy day. Maybe we'll be lucky and Bobby Menendez will hold on to his seat, too. Like Democrats aren't corrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Oh, happy day. Maybe we'll be lucky and Bobby Menendez will hold on to his seat, too. don't talk about my congressman like that! He lives in my town. Great guy. Sure he overcharges poor people $400 per month more than the market value for their rent, but big deal. (ok, not poor people - the government on the behalf of poor people). leave bob alone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 don't talk about my congressman like that! He lives in my town. Great guy. Sure he overcharges poor people $400 per month more than the market value for their rent, but big deal. (ok, not poor people - the government on the behalf of poor people). leave bob alone! 799851[/snapback] Isn't Bob under investigation for a whole bunch of other corruption issues? Shows how bright the average New Jersey resident is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Like Democrats aren't corrupt. 799845[/snapback] They are???? I thought it was only the evil Republicans..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Oh, happy day. Maybe we'll be lucky and Bobby Menendez will hold on to his seat, too. Like Democrats aren't corrupt. 799845[/snapback] Doesn't matter if they are or not, its how an individual voter views this that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Doesn't matter if they are or not, its how an individual voter views this that matters. 799875[/snapback] Thus my comment on the intelligence of NJ voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts