Foley - Who gets to claim him?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Oct 6 2006, 03:51 PM) [snapback]329112[/snapback]</div>

I am shocked, shocked by all this filth, this smut, these unnatural carryings on, this craven sordid despiction of unrestrained lust. Do you have more?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Oct 6 2006, 02:51 PM) [snapback]329112[/snapback]</div>

I think the most repugnant part of all is that he is reputed to have left the floor during a vote,in order to engage in a bit of, ummm, extracurricular text messaging.

When one's personal life comes into conflict with one's professional obligations...that's when the problems -- and heartaches -- begin.

 

"extracurricular text messaging."

I think it may have been "extracurricular Tex massaging"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Oct 6 2006, 03:18 PM) [snapback]329129[/snapback]</div>

Yep, that's it all right; thanks for catching my mistake.
[smile]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tleonhar @ Oct 5 2006, 03:03 PM) [snapback]328567[/snapback]</div>

Yes. Good thing we've turned the corner. In a sane world, we'd have more stories on those soldier's loss and less on IM's from 3 years ago.

 

Foley was just following Bush's policy:

"No child left behind!"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Oct 6 2006, 07:40 PM) [snapback]329232[/snapback]</div>

...or is it "No child's behind left"?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Oct 6 2006, 08:58 AM) [snapback]328950[/snapback]</div>

I actually agree with you on this one (at least the first part of your first paragraph). It is entirely appropriate that the party asked him to resign in light of the betrayal of trust of the constituents. In that respect, it is more serious than some of the scandals having to do with consentual sex (even if laws were broken) where Congressmen are still in office.

But after the resignation there's ... what? So far, there's no evidence of any illegality, so there's probably no prosecution of Mr. Foley. The transcript of the IM with the page has been revealed to be with an 18 year old, but Mark Halprin, political editor of ABC News, said today that they did have transcripts of IMs with pages that were underage at the time of the incident. But its unclear if even that is illegal in DC or Florida.

The issue with Fox News is based on the banner under his picture on The O'Rielly Factor, right? They flashed the banner under his picture three times for about 15 seconds, according to one breathless column I read on the Washington Post online. The O'Rielly Factor is not a hard news show, so its not accurate to say "Fox News" says Mr. Foley is a Democrat. I haven't seen if The O'Rielly Factor has issued a correction or not, but I have seen numerous mentions of Mr. Foley, his correct party affilliation, and round table discussions of the impact this will have on the Republican party. It may make you feel better to state, categorically, that Fox News is calling him a Democrat, but when people find out you have overstated the incident, it cheapens the rest of your arguments.

The one thing that is amusing about all of this is the way partisans are swapping sides on this one. Perhaps we'll get your support for anti-porn legislation, content filters on computers in public libraries, Federal legislation making speech with sexual content illegal when conducted between adults and people under the age of 18 and the rest of the "reforms" that "Focus on the Family" wants to institute? They are in Colorado Springs in case you want to send them a donation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Oct 6 2006, 12:42 PM) [snapback]329110[/snapback]</div>

Hmmm ... seeing my quote out of context makes it look different from how I meant it. I mentioned gay scout leaders in the context of him not being able to continue as a Republican, since conservatives generally are against gay scout leaders. I'm pretty much an agnostic on the issue, as I have seen the stats and adult sexuality doesn't seem to have a bearing on what a pedophile prefers in his victims ... straight men often molest boys, for instance.

In the case of underage sex with teens, I think your adult preference probably prevails, as sexual attraction is usually stronger toward the younger range of ages. The difference between a legal adult and an illegal "child" can literally be one second between the end of their 17th year and their birthday. I have an employee who is now married to a man five years her senior ... that she met when she was 14. She told him her age on her second date with him, and to his credit, the time span between second date and third was three years.

Andrew Sullivan has a good blog article that really reflects most of what I was trying to say, although I don't think all of Mr. Foley's problems stem from him being "in the closet". See http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/09/the_closet.html. I think Mr. Foley is gay, and has a prediliction for teenaged boys. Take a look at gay porn and you'll see a lot of that ... only because of the law, they have the same requirement that the straight porn industry has to certify that the actors are at least 18 years old.

As far as prosecution goes, a lot depends on jurisdiction issues and where the teens live (if the underaged transcripts are produced by ABC News, which said today that they possessed and were, unlike the ones published, between Foley and underage teens.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Oct 6 2006, 08:58 AM) [snapback]328950[/snapback]</div>

Just in case you don't mind some facts getting into the way of your hyperbole, the Columbia Journalism Review has an analysis of this incident here:

http://www.cjrdaily.org/politics/theres_no...y_behind_an.php

In fact, O'Reilly's blog, before the more salascious IMs were published, identified Mr. Foley as a Republican and "big trouble" for the party in the mid-terms coming up.

I think it actually broke too early to affect the race in other districts, and by election time the local issues will hold more sway in voter's minds than a national text messaging scandal.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Oct 6 2006, 11:22 PM) [snapback]329331[/snapback]</div>

Get your facts straight.

'On Monday, Hastert said Foley "resigned almost immediately upon the outbreak of this information, and so we really didn't have a chance to ask him to resign."'

More

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 6 2006, 10:13 PM) [snapback]329346[/snapback]</div>

Ah, thanks for the correction.

 

President Bush addresses this matter

http://weeklyradioaddress.com/WRA20061007.htm

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

To answer the pseudo-question of the OP:

Foley belongs to the repubs, from two perspectives:

1. The repubs protected him (and hastert in turn).
2. They are the self-proclaimed 'moral' party. Reality begs to differ.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Oct 10 2006, 11:35 AM) [snapback]330610[/snapback]</div>

Stupid question - what did he do? I have been out of the loop for about a week.

Thanks.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 10 2006, 11:37 AM) [snapback]330612[/snapback]</div>

Seriously, what did Foley do to get all this attention - calls for his resignation, calls for the Speaker of House's resignation, etc?

Throw a guy a bone here - let me know what he did.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 10 2006, 12:08 PM) [snapback]330638[/snapback]</div>

Third time the charm? I have been busy with family in the hospital for the past 9 days and have missed this foley thing. Could somebody please explain to me what he did to get all these people calling for his and the Speaker of House's resignation?

Thanks guys.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 10 2006, 10:30 AM) [snapback]330697[/snapback]</div>

Try Google News and the Foley's follies thread in PriusChat FHOP.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Oct 5 2006, 10:25 AM) [snapback]328419[/snapback]</div>

sorry, hit respond to the wrong post.

 

GOP - Gay Old Pederasts