International Machine Consortium
Golden Member
Not to aidanjim. He thinks this is all much ado about nothing and the fault of Democrats. We're harming those kids. Yes, I know, upside down and backwards.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Congressman Foley resigned
Page 17 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Not to aidanjim. He thinks this is all much ado about nothing and the fault of Democrats. We're harming those kids. Yes, I know, upside down and backwards.
International Machine Consortium
Golden Member
Links? 😛
International Machine Consortium
Golden Member
Shhhh, we don't want reality interfering with the (attempted) Republican whitewash.
"Nothing to see here folks, let's just move along now" (Gestapo arm banded stormtroopers waving us by smartly) "look over there, a terrorist!"
I seem to recall you've been downplaying this scandal throughout. I could be wrong. . 😉
Blame the Democrats. Accuse the democrats of playing politics.
HA
Longtime Republican was source of e-mails
The source who in July gave news media Rep. Mark Foley?s (R-Fla.) suspect e-mails to a former House page says the documents came to him from a House GOP aide.
That aide has been a registered Republican since becoming eligible to vote, said the source, who showed The Hill public records supporting his claim.
The same source, who acted as an intermediary between the aide-turned-whistleblower and several news outlets, says the person who shared the documents is no longer employed in the House.
But the whistleblower was a paid GOP staffer when the documents were first given to the media.
The source bolstered the claim by sharing un-redacted e-mails in which the former page first alerted his congressional sponsor?s office of Foley?s attentions. The copies of these e-mails, now available to the public, have the names of senders and recipients blotted out.
These revelations mean that Republicans who are calling for probes to discover what Democratic leaders and staff knew about Foley?s improper exchanges with under-age pages will likely be unable to show that the opposition party orchestrated the scandal now roiling the GOP just a month away from the midterm elections.
Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) yesterday called for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) to testify about what and when they knew of Foley?s contact with former pages (see related story).
HA
Longtime Republican was source of e-mails
The source who in July gave news media Rep. Mark Foley?s (R-Fla.) suspect e-mails to a former House page says the documents came to him from a House GOP aide.
That aide has been a registered Republican since becoming eligible to vote, said the source, who showed The Hill public records supporting his claim.
The same source, who acted as an intermediary between the aide-turned-whistleblower and several news outlets, says the person who shared the documents is no longer employed in the House.
But the whistleblower was a paid GOP staffer when the documents were first given to the media.
The source bolstered the claim by sharing un-redacted e-mails in which the former page first alerted his congressional sponsor?s office of Foley?s attentions. The copies of these e-mails, now available to the public, have the names of senders and recipients blotted out.
These revelations mean that Republicans who are calling for probes to discover what Democratic leaders and staff knew about Foley?s improper exchanges with under-age pages will likely be unable to show that the opposition party orchestrated the scandal now roiling the GOP just a month away from the midterm elections.
Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) yesterday called for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) to testify about what and when they knew of Foley?s contact with former pages (see related story).
International Machine Consortium
Golden Member
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/05/hastert.foley/index.html
Aide to Hastert says he told ol' Denny boy about Foley and his sheeeenanigans YEARS ago (3). Hastert's CURRENT aide says "nope, never happened."
Who you gonna believe? Hmmmm, leseee....*taps finger on chin
Aide to Hastert says he told ol' Denny boy about Foley and his sheeeenanigans YEARS ago (3). Hastert's CURRENT aide says "nope, never happened."
Who you gonna believe? Hmmmm, leseee....*taps finger on chin
International Machine Consortium
Golden Member
From smashp's link:
I also see in that link the Republicans are desperately trying to offload repsonsibility for their illegal actions by blaming Democrats. WHo's running the show down there again? They expect the Democrats to police the party in control? If it weren't so incredibly absurd it would be funny!
I also see in that link the Republicans are desperately trying to offload repsonsibility for their illegal actions by blaming Democrats. WHo's running the show down there again? They expect the Democrats to police the party in control? If it weren't so incredibly absurd it would be funny!
BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
Talking points . . .
1) When addressing the Foley affair be sure to show righteous indignation. Feel free to make a face and go 'ewwww' if it seems appropriate.
2) Be sure that none of your statements include Foley's name in close proximity to 'Republican' or 'GOP'.
3) At every opportunity, juxtapose Foley's name with the words 'gay' and 'Democrat'.
4) The coverup didn't work so let's go after the messenger. The name isn't out there yet so there's no reason . . . OK there's a bunch of reasons but that doesn't matter. Nobody can PROVE that a Democrat didn't do this so when you talk about the investigations do NOT mention Speaker Hastert, Boehner, Blunt, Reynolds, or any other Republican by name or position. But be CERTAIN to mention Minority Leader Pelosi and the Dems campaign chair Emmanuelle. Preferably mention both while insinuating its hard to believe they didn't know anything . . . then give a wink wink and say any sentence even if it's nonsensical that works in the elements mentioned in #3.
5) Conservative allegedly Christian voters might actually be indignant enough not to vote in this election cycle. Quickly segue to talk about banning gay marriage (even though we've already done that), banning gay adoption, stopping the influx of illegals (don't mention the fact that most of them are devout Catholics . . . unless of course you are in the South), banning abortion, and how the absence of Jesus in schools is responsible for all the shootings.
1) When addressing the Foley affair be sure to show righteous indignation. Feel free to make a face and go 'ewwww' if it seems appropriate.
2) Be sure that none of your statements include Foley's name in close proximity to 'Republican' or 'GOP'.
3) At every opportunity, juxtapose Foley's name with the words 'gay' and 'Democrat'.
4) The coverup didn't work so let's go after the messenger. The name isn't out there yet so there's no reason . . . OK there's a bunch of reasons but that doesn't matter. Nobody can PROVE that a Democrat didn't do this so when you talk about the investigations do NOT mention Speaker Hastert, Boehner, Blunt, Reynolds, or any other Republican by name or position. But be CERTAIN to mention Minority Leader Pelosi and the Dems campaign chair Emmanuelle. Preferably mention both while insinuating its hard to believe they didn't know anything . . . then give a wink wink and say any sentence even if it's nonsensical that works in the elements mentioned in #3.
5) Conservative allegedly Christian voters might actually be indignant enough not to vote in this election cycle. Quickly segue to talk about banning gay marriage (even though we've already done that), banning gay adoption, stopping the influx of illegals (don't mention the fact that most of them are devout Catholics . . . unless of course you are in the South), banning abortion, and how the absence of Jesus in schools is responsible for all the shootings.
Right... the thought of having sex with a lovely fresh-faced 18 year old lass is "disgusting" to you and all healthy, non-perverted heterosexual adult men... lol.
Foley is no more a "pedophile" than the old guy who married Anna Nicole Smith was a pedophile.
The only reason people can get away with calling him a pedophile is because the relationship in question is homosexual in nature. Different standards apply, according to Democrats. It's normal for an adult man to be attracted to an 18 year old woman, but when a gay man is attracted to an 18 year old man, it is somehow "pedophilia". Basically Democrats are exploiting homophobic double-standards for their own political purposes. Which makes them little better than Republicans.
By all accounts, Foley has done nothing illegal. His behavior is somewhat unethical. But this is essentially a mild case of sexual harrassment in the workplace. I actually don't think Foley should have been so quick to resign. He probably could have weathered this out, if he had the balls. But then, he's never come out of the closet until now, so I guess courage is not a quality he has in abundance.
Um, where is the evidence the young man was harmed by Foley's behavior? He may have felt a bit uncomfortable, a bit embarrassed over Foley's behavior - but to suggest that a 16 to 18 year old young man might be traumatized by sexually suggestive emails is ludicrous. The problem here is that you need to exaggerate the heinousness of Foley's actions, in order to score political points against Republicans. In fact, Foley's behavior was a minor (in the grand scheme of things) transgression of a kind that is taking place is taking place in countless workplaces across the country as we speak. A rather mild case of sexual harrassment.
Of course, having your name in the media, with rumors circulating about your sexual orientation and whether you were willing to sleep with a congressman to advance your career - now THAt is something that might be genuinley harmful to a young person.
Read the article carefully.
The chief of staff was notified, it does not state that it was Denny himself.
Many times, those COS positions are filled by people with enough savy to attempt to take care of the problems; protect the boss from political embarressment/trivia/irritations. such postiion also carry the weight of the boss by implication when working with others.
I was intrigued to read that in 1982, Gerry Studds, a Democratic congressman from Massachusetts, had actual, in the flesh, sex (unlike Foley) with a 17-year-old male page, and made advances to other teen-age male pages. He was censured by the house, but stayed on, and his consituents kept him on for another 13 years.
From Wikipedia:
1983 Congressional page sex scandal
Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with minors ? in Studds's case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page who was of the age of legal consent, according to state law at the time. The relationship was consensual, but presented ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates.
During the course of the House Ethics Committee's investigation, Studds publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to a Washington Post article, "apparently was not news to many of his constituents." Studds stated in an address to the House, "It is not a simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either public or private life, let alone both, but these challenges are made substantially more complex when one is, as I am, both an elected public official and gay." He acknowledged that it had been inappropriate to engage in a relationship with a subordinate, and said his actions represented "a very serious error in judgement."[1]
As the House read their censure of him, Studds turned his back on the speaker and members in the chamber and ignored them. Later, at a press conference with the former page standing beside him, the two stated that what had happened between them was nobody's business but their own.[1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds
1983 Congressional page sex scandal
Studds... refused to apologize for his behavior, and even turned his back and ignored the censure being read to him. He called a press conference with the former page, in which both stated that the young man, who was 17, consented. Studds had taken the adolescent to Morocco to engage in sexual activity, and therefore did not break any U.S. laws in what he called a "private relationship."[1] He continued to be reelected until his retirement in 1996.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Congressional_page_sex_scandal
If an adult man having a sexual relationship with a 17 year male old is "pedophilia", then I do wonder why the Democrats tolerated Studds in their party for 13 years after the fact of his sexual affair with a 17 year old male page.
From Wikipedia:
1983 Congressional page sex scandal
Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with minors ? in Studds's case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page who was of the age of legal consent, according to state law at the time. The relationship was consensual, but presented ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates.
During the course of the House Ethics Committee's investigation, Studds publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to a Washington Post article, "apparently was not news to many of his constituents." Studds stated in an address to the House, "It is not a simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either public or private life, let alone both, but these challenges are made substantially more complex when one is, as I am, both an elected public official and gay." He acknowledged that it had been inappropriate to engage in a relationship with a subordinate, and said his actions represented "a very serious error in judgement."[1]
As the House read their censure of him, Studds turned his back on the speaker and members in the chamber and ignored them. Later, at a press conference with the former page standing beside him, the two stated that what had happened between them was nobody's business but their own.[1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds
1983 Congressional page sex scandal
Studds... refused to apologize for his behavior, and even turned his back and ignored the censure being read to him. He called a press conference with the former page, in which both stated that the young man, who was 17, consented. Studds had taken the adolescent to Morocco to engage in sexual activity, and therefore did not break any U.S. laws in what he called a "private relationship."[1] He continued to be reelected until his retirement in 1996.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Congressional_page_sex_scandal
If an adult man having a sexual relationship with a 17 year male old is "pedophilia", then I do wonder why the Democrats tolerated Studds in their party for 13 years after the fact of his sexual affair with a 17 year old male page.
K1052
Elite Member
From all I've seen the only thing he is likely guilty of is a pattern of sexual harassment, something that is hardly a unique occurrence in Congress. Thus far, the evidence for a cover-up is circumstantial he said - she said kind of stuff though the Democrats will surely tear at it as much as possible (hence the current Republican counter-offensive). The goal is to obviously embarrass the Republicans as much as possible using that since they can't attack Foley directly and will instead use the "cover-up" explanation to use Foley's homosexuality as a weapon against the Republicans. I find this to be incredibly cynical and hypocritical from the party that supposedly prides itself on tolerance.
Was what Foley did wrong? Yes and immensely damaging to his party to boot.
Should he have resigned? Most likely, he would be politically outcast and rendered ineffective anyway if he decided to ride it out.
International Machine Consortium
Golden Member
In their bid to hang Foley's despicable behavior and their subsequent coverup of it on someone, anyone else, the Republican party seems to be ready to start eating its own!
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/05/hastert.foley/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/05/hastert.foley/index.html
International Machine Consortium
Golden Member
Yeah, I'm a homophobe because I want to protect homosexual boys from nasty, hairy old men and to punish those reposnisble for covering up his behavior. You're a wacknut.
International Machine Consortium
Golden Member
All topped off with an underhanded, false, personal attack, unless you are referring to aidenjims post accusing me of being a homophobe and attributing things to me falsely. I love it when the Moral Authority falls on its own sword. You MUST be a Republican.
K1052
Elite Member
Looking back over the last half of the thread it seems you were the one who attacked him first, AFAIK. He also accused you of exploiting homophobia (which I actually would consider to be a more damning indictment), not being one. I suggest you read more carefully.
I am also in agreement with aidanjm's assesment of the situation, which I can tell you is nearly a singular occurrence.
For the record I am not a Republican.
I'm going to just take a guess that you don't have any kids? Correct me if I'm wrong.
While I can appreciate the beauty of a hot looking young woman, having sex with someone that young is just "robbing the cradle". They may "look" old enough but the fact is they are still just kids and an older person who is having sex with them is, IMO, just taking advantage of them.
Granted, there are exceptions to every rule. True love being the one that comes to mind, but Foley never really loved them (notice that's plural), he just used them for his physical gratifacation.
I don't know Anne Nicholes history so I'm not going to comment on that, other then to say I don't think the comparison fits.
DealMonkey
Lifer
You know what I think? You'll do or say anything to deflect this scandal onto anyone but the folks who are to blame. Nicely played, sir. :thumbsdown:
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
I actually agree with that.
Aidanjn, one of the problems with republican apologists like yourself is the rank partisanship, inconsistency, hypocrisy in how you sing a different tune based on party.
You are out here questioning the harm of underage sex predatory behavior to defend a republican, while you would be here condemning the democrat who did the same thing.
I've long said we have a right-wing cult, not a political party, in this country now. You are showing a fine example with your bias.
It's easy to see - when the democrats do wrong, blame them, and when the republicans do wrong and the democrats blame them, blame the democrats for 'milking the situation'.
You're a pawn, a tool, for a very corrupt, manipulative party which has stolen the name and the principles of our country for their own greed, and you don't know it.
Go watch the Bill Moyers show, 'Moyers on America: Capitol Crimes', and see the facts about the group that has fooled you so.
You are out here questioning the harm of underage sex predatory behavior to defend a republican, while you would be here condemning the democrat who did the same thing.
I've long said we have a right-wing cult, not a political party, in this country now. You are showing a fine example with your bias.
It's easy to see - when the democrats do wrong, blame them, and when the republicans do wrong and the democrats blame them, blame the democrats for 'milking the situation'.
You're a pawn, a tool, for a very corrupt, manipulative party which has stolen the name and the principles of our country for their own greed, and you don't know it.
Go watch the Bill Moyers show, 'Moyers on America: Capitol Crimes', and see the facts about the group that has fooled you so.
OneOfTheseDays
Diamond Member
I don't even think aidanjm is Republican. He's gay, and Foley is obviously gay, which is why I believe he is defending his actions.
I think he is blaming the a-holes that potentially did the most harm to the kid, no? But let's be serious.
No potentially gay youth or straight youth that might be suspected of being gay is worth the potential to destroy a political foe. Politics is about winning, not ethics, no.
In short, I see nothing in aidanjm's post that don't represent an ethical stance far superior to your own.
He has cautioned that we distinguish between a pedophile and a homosexual, that we don't allow or perpetrate or fall victim to stereotypes by lumping them together, that we ascertain the actual facts.
Further he has express the desire that the young people involved in this have their identity protected for the sake of privacy and the implications to their lives and mental health, friends, families, and future. I see in his posts a high level of empathy, perhaps one born of much personal pain. I appreciate and support the views he has expressed here.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
