By saying, "New, disgusting right wing tactic" you imply it's a common thing that the Republicans are doing instead of two, loony radio hosts.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
When isn't some Republican or politican from either party lying? They all show a loyalty to their party first and the truth somewhere near the bottom. The only satisfaction the American People can get is to make them pay when they are caught with their pants down like Foley and Hastert.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
The litter boxes are overflowing, there's no room left under the carpeting to sweep the dirt, and the closets are full of skeletons.
They've run out of room to hide things, so now the only oprions are to jettison things or walk the plank themselves.
You reap the tainted crops of the vile seeds you sow.
LOL, be an arse because you don't like what someone else says:thumbsdown:
LOLLOLLOL!
(irrelevant points need not be addressed)
In this thread, even you acknowledged that
Once again, you can't come to grips with the real issues in the Foley scandal so you dissemble and divert attention from it by pointing fingers in any direction other than the current ethically challenged Republican leadership.
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
Why does the name "Lewinski" keep coming to mind when I see this sort of thing? Now the Republicans accuse the mean old Democrats of playing politics by making light of this scandal. What did the Republicans do when the Lewinski scandal came to light? Did everything they could do outright destroy Clinton's career, as well as anyone associated with him.
I would also love to see this sort of thing be played down though. The guy was apparently corrupting minors, and his superiors may have been covering for him. For that they should be investigated, tried, and if found guilty, punished.
There are things more important that this. And I don't mean other diversionary BS like flag burning. We have plenty of other social issues that need to be addressed. Human rights, human welfare in society, medical coverage, better education, environmental policy, foreign policy......but those are boring things. Everyone wants to hear about sex, even if it may be deviant.
ProfJohn -- First, you post the obvious about Foley:
If two statements are contradictory, at least one of them must be false. Who's lying? Hastert or all the Republicans who have stated publically that they warned him? You still haven't answered that, but in your typical style, all you can manage to do is dissemble and divert attention from it by pointing fingers in any direction other than the current ethically challenged Republican leadership:
1. Foley was a sexual predator. You can attempt to define and redefine the precise definition of the word, "pedophilia" from now until Tuesday, November 7, but it won't affect what happens to Foley. Whether you call them "children," or "teens," or "young adults," or anything else, it also won't change the horror felt by American parents, nationwide, at the thought that an adult Congressman, elected to one of the highest offices in the nation, and entrusted with the care and protection of juvenile house pages, appears to have betrayed that trust on multiple occasions, with multiple victims over many years.
2. Debra Lafave is 25 years old and visually attractive enough, in a generic Barbie Doll sense, to draw snide sexual inuendos from some younger member of the hormone driven OT crowd. Like Foley, she's also a sexual predator who targets juveniles. The fact that her preferences are heterosexual are irrelevant, and by your twisted logic, the fact that her victim was physically developed enough to engage in sex with her would preclude calling her crime "pedophilia."
What techs or anyone else posted about Debra Lafave on a forum like ATOT has no bearing on the gravity of her offenses or Foley's. It's also meaningless with respect to the ethical, moral, poliitical and legal corruption of anyone, Republican or Demorcat, who attempted to cover up Foley's actions.
No amount of finger pointing distraction by you or anyone else will hide or remove the stain from any Republican leader who participated in any cover up. If you can't acknowlede what the evidence makes abundantly clear, you only confirms that you're yet another tired, pathetic political hack, as intellectually and ethically bankrupt as those you continue to attempt to protect.
As I said, earlier, your blatant statement of the obvious ignores the the more significant story that several other Republican members of Congress and staff members have since testified that they warned Hastert about Foley's predatory pedophiliac contacts with House pages anywhere between six months and six years ago. However, Hastert continues to deny he received any such warning.
If two statements are contradictory, at least one of them must be false. Who's lying? Hastert or all the Republicans who have stated publically that they warned him? You still haven't answered that, but in your typical style, all you can manage to do is dissemble and divert attention from it by pointing fingers in any direction other than the current ethically challenged Republican leadership:
Facts:
1. Foley was a sexual predator. You can attempt to define and redefine the precise definition of the word, "pedophilia" from now until Tuesday, November 7, but it won't affect what happens to Foley. Whether you call them "children," or "teens," or "young adults," or anything else, it also won't change the horror felt by American parents, nationwide, at the thought that an adult Congressman, elected to one of the highest offices in the nation, and entrusted with the care and protection of juvenile house pages, appears to have betrayed that trust on multiple occasions, with multiple victims over many years.
2. Debra Lafave is 25 years old and visually attractive enough, in a generic Barbie Doll sense, to draw snide sexual inuendos from some younger member of the hormone driven OT crowd. Like Foley, she's also a sexual predator who targets juveniles. The fact that her preferences are heterosexual are irrelevant, and by your twisted logic, the fact that her victim was physically developed enough to engage in sex with her would preclude calling her crime "pedophilia."
What techs or anyone else posted about Debra Lafave on a forum like ATOT has no bearing on the gravity of her offenses or Foley's. It's also meaningless with respect to the ethical, moral, poliitical and legal corruption of anyone, Republican or Demorcat, who attempted to cover up Foley's actions.
No amount of finger pointing distraction by you or anyone else will hide or remove the stain from any Republican leader who participated in any cover up. If you can't acknowlede what the evidence makes abundantly clear, you only confirms that you're yet another tired, pathetic political hack, as intellectually and ethically bankrupt as those you continue to attempt to protect.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
I saw an interesting topic on this on some CNN show ever the weekend. It was an interview with some guy who was head of some security detail responsible for the campus the pages typically live on. Basically he said to call these kids innocent and sheltered is a mistake. Im sure there are a percentage who are, but he was talking about pool parties with the pages where the girls would be flashing people, alcohol being smuggled into their quarters, etc. A regular ol frat party.
Something to remember also is recent stats show the age of first sexual experience has gone down in the last 20-30 years, and the number of sexually active teens has gone up. Lets not forget pages are just teenagers. Does it excuse Foley's behaviour? Absolutely not. But to label him a predetor is just wrong IMHO.
Something to remember also is recent stats show the age of first sexual experience has gone down in the last 20-30 years, and the number of sexually active teens has gone up. Lets not forget pages are just teenagers. Does it excuse Foley's behaviour? Absolutely not. But to label him a predetor is just wrong IMHO.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
First of all, Im a Democrat.
Second of all, have you ever seen teen videos on youtube? Are you aware what many teens act like these days? Gimme a break. Again, I think Foley acting on his impulses are wrong. But he certainly doesnt fall into the predetor catagory.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
First off, that was not an ATOT thread, but a P&N thread so take all your OT comments and throw them out the window.
Second, techs posted an explanation and I accept it. Yes, she is hot, and yes it is sad that she might profit of the case.
If you look through that thread you will see that I posted Techs only comment on the issue. There were only two P&N threads about Lafave (that I can find via search) and that was the ONLY comment by Techs on either, and you don't make a comment on either thread.
Now after doing a quick search for "lafave" on OT I found 17 threads and could not find ONE comment by you Harvey. Please tell me that all this outrage we see from you about "the horror felt by American parents, nationwide, at the thought that an adult Congressman, elected to one of the highest offices in the nation, and entrusted with the care and protection of juvenile house pages" is not motivated by the fact that the accused is a Republican. (Since this is the only sex scandal since AT came into existence I can't find any other to judge peoples' comments by.)
Back to the "real" facts of the case.
As despicable as what Foley did was, there is still no evidence that he broke any laws. The pages he exchanged IMs and e-mails with were of legal age by the standards of Washington DC. The only story I know of where a page claims to have actual sex with Foley occurred after the page turned 18. It seems that was Foley's method "I always knew you were a player but I don't fool around with pages."
So Foley finds and picks out gay pages while they are 16 or 17 and then engages with them after they turn 18, disgusting, yes, illegal NO.
As far as the cover up allegations, as of TODAY there is NO proof at all that anyone knew of Foley and the more serious charges of sexual IMs or having sex with former pages. (Heck even if you told someone that Foley was having sex with former pages could you really do anything about it? Once these guys turn 18 they can screw anyone they want, and if someone made a big deal out of a gay congressman having sex with 18 year old males who were former pages the cries of "homophobia" and "bigotry" would have been all over the place.)
As I have said MANY times, what Foley did was not acceptable behavior for a member of congress, and it is good he resigned. If he broke any laws then he should pay the price.
However, as of today, all the allegations of cover up ring hollow. We know for a fact that in addition to some Republicans, the FBI and many news organizations all had copies of the e-mails and EVERY ONE of them decided it was not worth publishing or investigating.
Your statement quoted above is a total LIE. There is NO evidence at all that anyone knew of any kind of "predatory pedophiliac contacts" What they knew about was e-mails from Foley to a house page that were "icky" and inappropriate, but contained nothing at all of a sexual nature in them.
Even if Hastert had launched a complete investigation it is very doubtful they would have found anything worth talking about, since the sexual IMs were not in the possession of ANYONE they would have talked too. Foley would have denied everything, which he did, and they would have let it go with a warning at best to stop contact, which they did.
You need to stop confusing the story about the e-mail with the story of the sexual IMs. The e-mail was from one person, the sexual IMs was from someone totally different and occurred THREE years before the e-mails. No Republican or FBI investigation would have turned up the sex IMs.
When you can provide PROOF that any member of the Republican Party KNEW that Foley was doing more than sending "icky" e-mails please post that proof for all to see.
Until then all you are doing is contributing to global warming by spewing a lot of hot air.
Lots of good Foley details here at wiki Mark Foley scandal
What does that even mean? Corrupting minors? First of all, the young men involved were not minors. They are legally entitled to have sex with any other consenting adult over the age of consent. Second - how is sending a sleazy email to someone corrupting them? What Foley was doing was bordelrine sexual harrassment. Sending unwanted sexually explicit material to pages. It was inappropriate because he was in a supervisory or senior position - his job was to mentor the pages, not hit on them. So basically his behavior was unprofessional and sleazy.
Foley's behavior was arguably predatory (or not, depending on the page's own preferences and inclinations) - but his behavior was certainly not pedophilic. In case you are not aware, pedophilia is a sexual paraphilia where adults are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. Whereas Foley is clearly attracted to the sexually developed male. We know this because of his excessive interest in the length of the page's gentialia.
A pedophile, by definition, is not looking for a partner with a huge d1ck. Pedophiles are interested in sexually undeveloped children. If you are going to classify Foley's interest in 16, 17 OR 18 YEAR OLD YOUNG MEN AS "PEDOPHILIC" THEN I WOULD HOPE YOU ARE HONEST ENOUGH TO CLASSIFY YOURSELF, AND ALL THE ADULT MEN ON THIS FORUM, AS PEDOPHILLES ALSO. Afterall, I am quite certain that all of you have viewed 16, 17 or 18 year old young women with lustful thoughts.What do you care what Rush and Savage say on their radio show? Republicans are the only people that listen to it anyway, it's not like they're swaying votes...
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Foley's behavior was arguably predatory (or not, depending on the page's own preferences and inclinations) - but his behavior was certainly not pedophilic. In case you are not aware, pedophilia is a sexual parapheilia where adults are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. Whereas Foley is clearly attracted to the sexually developed male. We know this because of his excessive interest in the length of the page's gentialia.
I think you should shelve the gay crusade, realize you're fighting a loosing battle in this case, and take note of the fact that Foley did send sexually explicit messages to minors. That is the activity in discussion here. Not someone's "lustful thoughts" which have no relevence under the law. And the egregiousness is exactly because Foley was in a position of authority, as well as the general sense that public figures should be held to higher standards of conduct.
Originally posted by: Termagant
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Foley's behavior was arguably predatory (or not, depending on the page's own preferences and inclinations) - but his behavior was certainly not pedophilic. In case you are not aware, pedophilia is a sexual paraphillia where adults are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. Whereas Foley is clearly attracted to the sexually developed male. We know this because of his excessive interest in the length of the page's gentialia.
I think you should shelve the gay crusade, realize you're fighting a loosing battle in this case, and take note of the fact that Foley did send sexually explicit messages to minors.
Actually, he had a sexually explicit conversation with an adult aged 18 years old.
That isn't pedophilia. So don't call it pedophilia just to make what he did sound worse.
I am discussing the misue of the term "pedophilia" to describe Foley's sexual predilections.
If you want to call Foley a pedophile for being sexually attracted to an 18 year old, then have the decency to admit you are a pedophile yourself.
[/quote]
It is legitimate to criticize Foley's behavior as unprofessional and unethical. It's not legitimate to refer to him as a pedophile.
One difference being that Foley acted on his urges while other people do not. I might lsee an underaged girl and think "hey, she's kinda hot" but I don't start e-mailing her, don't ask her about how she's shaved, don't go hounding her in her dorm room drunk, don't try to arrange meetings with her, etc etc etc. See the difference? He acted on his impulses. That's where he went wrong.
Prof....
You keep harping on the fact that the pages were of legal age in DC. I would like to make you aware of the fact that the contact was not restricted to the page's time spent in Washington. There have been many reports of his contacting them while they were in their home states as well which may or may not have a very significant impact on the legality of his conduct.
As for the LeFave (or any other case such as that)....when it happens it should be punished. When it is done by a male, it will always be viewed as a more serious/heinous violation. When it is done by a woman that is physically appealing (or in the case of LeFave...HOT), it will always be brought down to the fantasies that most guys had when they were teens about that one teacher in their school.
You keep harping on the fact that the pages were of legal age in DC. I would like to make you aware of the fact that the contact was not restricted to the page's time spent in Washington. There have been many reports of his contacting them while they were in their home states as well which may or may not have a very significant impact on the legality of his conduct.
As for the LeFave (or any other case such as that)....when it happens it should be punished. When it is done by a male, it will always be viewed as a more serious/heinous violation. When it is done by a woman that is physically appealing (or in the case of LeFave...HOT), it will always be brought down to the fantasies that most guys had when they were teens about that one teacher in their school.
Wasn't the LeFavre case just one kid as copared to Foley running all over the place trying to nail as many as he could get his hands on?
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: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter