Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well that's great, that means Foley was emailing a consenting adult. So, what about Reynold's Catholic School Girls? 14 is less than 16, last I checked.
Democrat Party is Hypocritical on Foley Issue...
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Well that's great, that means Foley was emailing a consenting adult. So, what about Reynold's Catholic School Girls? 14 is less than 16, last I checked.
Okay, so it may not be a crime... Why did Floey resign, hell why dont the Republicans stand up and support him!
Come on, Dixie is right, What Foley did was not a crime so it must be okay. Get Foley back in office, set him up with a press conference where the Republican members of the house can stand behind him and support him in his re-election bid! Hell, get Bush on television backing Foley's campaign!
Come on, Dixie is right, What Foley did was not a crime so it must be okay. Get Foley back in office, set him up with a press conference where the Republican members of the house can stand behind him and support him in his re-election bid! Hell, get Bush on television backing Foley's campaign!
uscitizen
Villified User
sounds like a good Idea to me alex. I guess those repubs are just too wussy to stand up for what they believe in.
klaatu
Fusionist
Im not sure if you are using sarcasm here .. I suspect you are. I wouldnt say twice as guilty .. but I will say pretty darn scummy and worth throwing the hell out of Washington. You have a lot of nerve attacking Trog and/or Dixie for playing party politics... when you are as guilty or 10 times worse. You have been drooling ove this Foley episode.... not saddened with the prospect of these kids being harmed by these disgusting predators. But drooling over the fact that it scores points for your Political Party. You and your cohorts are as sick as the predators.
Folks.. despite the fact that some sickos are trying to make it out as such.., this is not a Democrat or Republican issue.. this is an individual issue...
maineman
Banned
except the age of consent in Lousiana where the page lives and Florida where the emails originated is different than in DC.
and who ever said anything about Reynolds? He was a scumbag.... I have never defended him...but clearly, this Foley thing is making "speaker Pelosi" look like something a lot less than a longshot.
oh...and how do you quote me if you are ignoring me?
except the age of consent in Lousiana where the page lives and Florida where the emails originated is different than in DC.
and who ever said anything about Reynolds? He was a scumbag.... I have never defended him...but clearly, this Foley thing is making "speaker Pelosi" look like something a lot less than a longshot.
oh...and how do you quote me if you are ignoring me?
He took a course in truth-telling from Condi Rice...
except the age of consent in Lousiana where the page lives and Florida where the emails originated is different than in DC.
and who ever said anything about Reynolds? He was a scumbag.... I have never defended him...but clearly, this Foley thing is making "speaker Pelosi" look like something a lot less than a longshot.
oh...and how do you quote me if you are ignoring me?
Depends on where the kid was, D.C., Florida or Lousiana when the emails were sent or recieved...
Your hero, Matt Drudge, agrees with you!
-Matt Drudge: "And if anything, these kids are less innocent — these 16 and 17 year-old beasts…and I've seen what they're doing on YouTube and I've seen what they're doing all over the internet — oh yeah — you just have to tune into any part of their pop culture. You're not going to tell me these are innocent babies. Have you read the transcripts that ABC posted going into the weekend of these instant messages, back and forth? The kids are egging the Congressman on! The kids are trying to get this out of him. We haven't got the whole story on this. "
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/...datorgate-they-are-16-and-17-year-old-beasts/
maineman
Banned
it seems he ignores me in order to avoid facing my withering line of questions... Hell...if he were half the debater I was, I might consider ignoring HIM....
nah...jes' kiddin'
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
Just because the Studds debacle, in which Studds had sex with an underage boy after serving him alcohol, was 'mishandled' does not justify a similar 'mishandling' of this case. Just because one side let's their slimey kiddy rapers get away with it does not mean proper action should not be taken against Foley for (at this point) inappropraite e-mails.
Two wrongs does not make a right.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
That depends. The age of consent, in several other states, is two-tiered based on differences in age. The age of consent here is "16." But it really isn't. This only applies to a partner not more than 4 years older. For age differences larger than this, the age of consent is 18 for the younger partner.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
Dixie, you will find with regard to this conversation that you will smeared as wanting to exonerate Foley, no matter how many times you state otherwise.
He ignores me when I ask the tough questions... but responds to my arguments when he thinks he can get away with just calling me names!
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
It was recently revised here. The spark was when a 39 year old woman and mother to be married her 15 yo baby-daddy, with whom she had been active since he was 13, because it wasn't prosecutable if they married because of the pregnancy. The old redneck 'shot gun wedding' factor codified into law - marry the girl you impregnated and stay out of jail, or go to jail. It really wasn't anticipated to work in the fashion above, but it did leave a loophole.
While looking at the revision, the general concensus was that the 17 yo boy who was dating a 16 yo girl, and was within the law today, would suddenly become illegal (and a childmolester under the law), when he turns 18 tomorrow. So, the age difference factor was put in. Thus, a 52 year old man and a 16 / 17 year old girl is illegal.
studs and this consenting 17 year old page continued to live together during and years after the scandal and immediately gave a press conference together after the censure...he was 18 at that time....they traveled europe after the censure, together, defiant of the censure, if what i've read is correct. he comes from a very liberal and heavily gay community/district around provincetown on the cape. they reelected him till retirement in 1996...
the Republican who also had an affair with a 17 year old female page was also censured and he lost his seat on reelection in his community BECAUSE this republican representative was committing ADULTERY with the 17 year old....he was SUPPOSEDLY, faithfully married at the time.
after these two scandals, rules and policies involving pages were changed.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I'm not suggesting anyone "mishandle" anything. I am merely pointing out the utter hypocrisy of the Democrat Party. As you can see, they have already come up with an "out" for Foley, the boy was 16, legal age of consent in DC is 16, so it was okay by Dems! If Foley were a Democrat, he wouldn't have resigned, and these same idiots who are running around acting all outraged over what was happening to the poor little children in Republicans care, would be making excuse after excuse, and justifying why Foley shouldn't have to give up his seat. I don't say this as speculation, I say it as fact, based on their past case history with this very sort of thing.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
First off some of the pages he had contact with were 15, not just 16...
Also, it is child internet pornography laws and exploitation laws on the internet that is going to BITE HIM IN THE BUTT....
But regardless of the Law, Did mark Foley use his position as Congressman improperly?
Was he lewd with the children that were entrusted to him and congress?
Did Hastert and the other Republicans that were told about this do the right thing with how they handled Foley?
did they do what was right and just?
did the Republicans do what was the moral thing to do?
The answer is NO....
regarding Studds, what he did was also wrong, along with the other REPUBLICan congressman that had an affair with the 17 year old page at the same time as him BACK IN FRICKING 1983.
Let me say one thing to you before YOU START PULLIN A NAME of one democrat...
Franklin Sex Scandal....
Then tell me again how HOLY you are....
care
ps. Did the Democrats know that Studds had a problem with young boys and then make him a mentor for the pages? Did they put studs as the chairman of a committee that was suppose to have oversight on exploited children?
Did Democrats put him with other children intentionally when they knew he had a young boy problem back in 1983? Please answer that...
Care
No, after he was censured for his 'boy problem', the Democrats gave him a resounding standing ovation, and told us that this shouldn't be a reason for him to not be allowed to represent the people who elected him. It was played off as being "none of our business" because it concerned his personal sex life, and there was not one ounce of concern for "the children."
Now that it's a Republican in a similar scandal, Democrats want to pretend that they were merely working hard to try and pass legislation to protect our children and keep them safe, and they were unable to get anything done, because Republicans were too busy raping little kids on the floor of Congress. You want to over-exaggerate this, like you do everything, and pretend like you are outraged and appauled by the behavior, when just a few years ago, you were willing to overlook this behavior and make every excuse in the book for keeping a pervert in his Democrat seat.
You are all a bunch of dishonest and disingenuous hypocrites, and this Foley episode illustrates that clearly.