Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » By the way, and this deserves its own topic... Foley is not necessarily a pedophile (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: By the way, and this deserves its own topic... Foley is not necessarily a pedophile
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm insufficiently erudite to recall such cartoons, but there is a certain Tory prudishness to the current Republican party.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"IMHO, Foley is actually guilty of only one thing: hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is to my mind worse than child-molestation."

Hmm. I am a big proponent of regular exercise. Due to my schedule and lazy proclivities, I am a hypocrite. Thus I am worse then a skeeve raping a 5 year old girl. Thank you for clearing that up.

Thank you Ricky, for once bringing a bit of even handedness to the debate. Liberal's initial post was slanderous, inaccurate and needlessly inflammatory.

For the record, I think the man behaved very inappropriately a) for abusing underlings (Monica, paging Monica), and b) for infringing on the spirit (if not the letter) of the Statuatory Rape laws.

1. I've heard the age of consent laws in Washington is 16. How does this influence the matter?

2. Was Hastert "defending a pedophile" or providing political cover for a gay Congress critter who made a mistake (too frequently)? It all depends on how you frame the question. [Big Grin]

3. Richard is consistant on Consent. How many on the Left decrying this are normally okay with flirting with 16 year olds and pro gay rights? Hypocricy is just flying all over the place here.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If it's any comfort, flydye, I believe there are very few Democrats who would have withheld their votes for Foley based solely on his flirtation with Congressional pages. So for Democrats, his unethical behavior is hardly a make-or-break issue. [Wink] [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Was Hastert "defending a pedophile" or providing political cover for a gay Congress critter who made a mistake"

How could he be a pedophile when he was hitting on teenagers, not prepubescents?

Since he didn't rape anyone, just (possibly) sexually harrassed, I don't see why he has to resign his Senate seat. Probably his position in whatever committee he was in that put him in charge of these kids.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am instead speaking of the firebreathing coming from the Congress Critters who have excused equal and worse actions of members who have the all important (D) next to their names.

But your point is well made.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Was Hastert "defending a pedophile" or providing political cover for a gay Congress critter who made a mistake"

How could he be a pedophile when he was hitting on teenagers, not prepubescents?

Ask Liberal. I instead turned the question on it's head to make Hastert's "mark of shame" into something that liberals would slap their flippers together in exhultation of defending the underdog. But Foley is alphabetically challanged (too far up the alphabet) [Wink]

[ October 05, 2006, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: flydye45 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Like I said elsewhere, the workplace angle is far stronger than the sexual harassment/"rape"/"pedophilia" angle. When you comibine the workplace aspect and the minority issue, it becomes far worse than what Bubba did.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But Foley is alphabetically challanged (too far up the alphabet).
That just means that those similarly up-the-alphabet aren't dumping on him as much as they would if he were lower on the letter-pole.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Flyde...

1973. No internet. No laws governing conduct on the non-existant internet. No evidence of anything crossing State Lines. Sex with a 16 year old in a Jurisdiction where sex with a 16 year old was legal. No evidence any other Democrat had the slightest clue what was going on while it was going on.


Today

Legislation governing conduct on the internet involving minors. Laws in CA (insane laws, love to see them overturned) which make it a crime to "groom" a minor for intercourse...which essentialy make it illegal to buy anything for or spend any time with a minor if a Prosecutor can prove it was your intent to do naughty things with them.

Partywise...the argument I don't agree with but which I do see how people can make without being "partisan"...we have evidence the Republican house leadership knew something was up and didn't act strongly enough for some people.

I've seen no evidence anyone knew back in 1973.


See, Foley asked a 16 year old to meet him for a meal in San Diego. We don't know if it happened or not. If it did, grooming.

He asked for nudie pics of a minor. This means he asked a Minor to participate in distributing child pornography across State lines.

At least one of them lived in Florida. Age of consent in Florida is 18. What is the law governing an overtly sexual message originating in DC and recieved in Florida? (Seriously...if anyone knows, please share.)

This is the law. Had he just buggered a 16 year old page or two in DC, and never called or e-mailed them once they got home, he'd probably be legally ok.

As it stands, he probably isn't.

On the Bubba issue...

My friends daughter is a stunner. Imagine Marylin Monroe with a smaller waist and bigger hooters. She interned at a lobbying firm in DC in the summer of 1995, when she was 17.

She met Clinton at a fundraiser. He came and sat by her during the meet and greet period, and started asking her a million questions. according to her, it went like this near the end.

"Are you graduating soon?"

"Next year"

"We are always looking for intelligent young women like you to help out with campaigns! What's your major, anyway?"

"I don't really have a major, I'm in high school"

"You're in....I think you have a wonderfully bright future and I hope you enjoy your time here in our nations capitol"

Then he ran. I questioned her on that, but she SWEARS he ran.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL. But then, this speaks to his credit in some degree - he zealously refrained from messing with underage women. [Big Grin]
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
His co-workers are establishing their "anti-pedophile" credentials just as they worked to establish their "anti-racist" cred when Lott made his little remarks. Meanwhile, Byrd...well be serious. The Dems needed every rat bastard in the Lott.

This does not speak well of them.

quote:
Like I said elsewhere, the workplace angle is far stronger than the sexual harassment/"rape"/"pedophilia" angle. When you comibine the workplace aspect and the minority issue, it becomes far worse than what Bubba did.

Flirting with underaged employees...having actual sex with employees who are correctly aged on the worksight (wiggles hand in air) I'd say it's a wash.

But I still hold Foley way accountable. As details come out, he starts crossing the spirit side of the law to violating the letter.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This story is right now drawing more news coverage than North Korea's plans to test nuclear weapons. It has also overshadowed President Bush's attempts to focus on whether invading Iraq helped protect the United States from terrorism. Much as I dislike President Bush's policies, and rejoice in misfortunes befalling his party, I find this out of proportion. The future course of the United States should not depend on the sexual behavior of one among more than 500 members of Congress.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not flirting, it's pressuring.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The future course of the United States should not depend on the sexual behavior of one among more than 500 members of Congress.
It is perfectly true that this is all about politics, not governance or policy. But the nut of the "story" is not Foley's misbehavior, nor the over-amped atmosphere in which the House leadership's actions are being closely examined. Rather, it is closer to your observation that you would "rejoice in misfortunes befalling his [Bush's] party" for reasons of governance and policy.

Iraq is enduring its worst violence yet, NK is making its ever more threatening statements, Afghanistan is slipping further away from the "success column", and the US has joined the list of dictatorships and 3rd World countries that use torture against their enemies. If Bush's party is weakened in Congress or becomes the minority, there is a chance that some of his disastrous policies that have brought world affairs to this state can be mitigated, reversed or superseded. Politics is the mechanism to achieve that. Fox, et al, will do whatever it takes to thwart that outcome; the Dems will do what they can to make it happen. It is sick and disgusting, but this is politics, pure and simple.

Having said that, I'm not cheering for what is happening, either. Foley's actions, criminal or otherwise, were his own. The Republican leadership's political behavior surrounding it reflects badly on them, not the party. Whichever Dems and Goppers can avoid the charge of hypocrisy in this matter may help keep Congress' eye on the ball. But this is already too nasty to expect any of that to happen between now and the election.

[ October 06, 2006, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: DaveS ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The future course of the United States should not depend on the sexual behavior of one among more than 500 members of Congress."

Why, whoever thinks it does?

"Hmm. I am a big proponent of regular exercise. Due to my schedule and lazy proclivities, I am a hypocrite."

No. You are lazy and busy. I beg you to ponder the distinction between hypocrisies of prohibition (tyhou shalt not but I shall) and hypocrisies of exhortation (thous should but I shan't).

Do you chastise others for not exercising even as you don't? THAT'S hypocrisy. A flabby couch potato telling his wife she needs to lose weight -- that's hypocrisy. A couch potato saying he ought to exercise but doesn't... that's falure to achieve a desire, not hypocrisy.

"How many on the Left decrying this are normally okay with flirting with 16 year olds and pro gay rights? Hypocricy is just flying all over the place here."

Paper airplanes made of soggy tissue don't fly so well, fly.

"I am instead speaking of the firebreathing coming from the Congress Critters who have excused equal and worse actions of members who have the all important (D) next to their names."

In so doing you are politicising a moral issue. Nasty mix. Myself, I take glee in seeing a party I despise take a hit. I take no pleasure in the firebreathing -- from either side -- as regards Foley. Nancy Pelosi saying she's disgusted and appaled disgusts and appals me the same as Hastert's turncoat [pals saying they're disgusted and appalled.

But I DO relish watching the Republican edifice collapse. It would be hypocritical of me to state otherwise.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Paper airplanes made of soggy tissue don't fly so well"

How exactly are you getting your tissue soggy again?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I saw an interview with some other pages stepping forward. They discussed the matter openly.

What struck me however, was how they dealt with the advances. Instead of disgust and indignation, they put it down to poor behavior, but were willing to put up with it to further their careers, much like a woman has to walk the sexual minefields at work in a gender inbalanced environment. Essentially, they treated it as par for the course, which was...interesting.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Plus I'd imagine these are relatively intelligent, balanced kids.

Not the kind of kids who would say, "Oh gosh, I really want him to like me, should I send him pictures?"

But maybe that's too big of an assumption...

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"How exactly are you getting your tissue soggy again?"


optical absorption of oozy logic in your post above (kenmeer abandons capitalization; shift key is a mutha...)

the pages are only pawns in this, yes? it is the pleyers in both parties who are bresahing fire... more like lighting their farts, really...

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1