Is anyone getting irritated with this Congressman Foley debacle?

[HForrest]

The idea of a guy having sexually-charged online chats with a 15 or 16 year old really doesn't bother me, to be honest. It's not like these kids didn't know what was happening. If they didn't want to talk dirty with Congressman Foley, they didn't have to. I mean, come on... at 16? I don't see how one could play the "poor, abused, manipulated child who didn't know what he was getting into" card. Granted, whoever does that is a sick *expletive deleted*bag. There are worse people in the world though.

However, being that Foley crusaded for strict laws against "internet pedophiles", I'm glad it's coming back to bite him in the ass.

[Vodka7]

It's about more than the emotional or physical age of the men involved CW--it's about a grown man whose impulse control is so poor he can't even limit himself to hitting on men who are at least 18, let alone men who he's not in a position of power over.  And with fifty-two chat logs from at least two teenagers, this is not an isolated, one time only incident.  This is a pattern of abuse of power over multiple minors spanning a several year period.

This freak is right up there with molester priests and troupe leaders as far as I'm concerned.  He deserves to go to jail.

[Perd Hapley]

This freak is right up there with molester priests and troupe leaders as far as I'm concerned.  He deserves to go to jail.

Only if he actually carried out the stuff he talked about.  Don't get me wrong, it's still abuse of power and sick behavior, especially considering the age of the boys he was talking to.  But the "it's just sex" defense seems noticably lacking from the Democrats who said that a few years ago.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

This freak is right up there with molester priests and troupe leaders as far as I'm concerned.  He deserves to go to jail.

Only if he actually carried out the stuff he talked about.  Don't get me wrong, it's still abuse of power and sick behavior, especially considering the age of the boys he was talking to.  But the "it's just sex" defense seems noticably lacking from the Democrats who said that a few years ago.

Likewise, the bleatings about a coverup amongst Republican leadership ring hypocritical, given the utter lack of concern from the Democrats over a recent politician's outright lies and perjury.

[The Rabbi]

And yes, this is a whole lot worse than Clinton and Lewinski. If anyone tries to tell me that a middle-aged man having consensual relations with an adult women in an office is as bad as or worse than a middle-aged man stalking underage boys on the Internet, well then I suspect we'll be seeing that person on "Dateline's" "To Catch a Predator" series sooner or later. Anyone who believes that what Clinton did is in the same league as what Foley did better stay far, far away from my sons.

I'll stay far away from your sons then.

What did Foley do?  He typed inappropriate messages on the internet.  That's it.  What did Clinton do?  He had a sexual relationship with a subordinate.  Any CEO of any company would lose his job over that (see, Harry Stonecipher).  That is a no-no.  Monica was not "consenting" in that situation since Clinton was her boss.
Unless you think thinking and writing and saying is the same thing as doing.

[Perd Hapley]

Yeah, Lobotomy Boy did seem to gloss over the fact of Clinton's power over Lewinsky.

[The Rabbi]

Yes.  I wouldnt minimize the fact that Foley needs to go.  If he can't govern himself how can he govern others?
But it is a far cry typing inappropriate messages on a computer to having subordinates blow you in the Oval Office.  And Clinton had a history of power abuse this way.  Supposedly when he was governor he would send state troopers to female gov't workers and basically say "the gov wants to meet you and he can do big things for your career."  Sorry, that is far more abusive than anything Foley did.

[mtnbkr]

...But it is a far cry typing inappropriate messages on a computer "for minors" to having subordinates blow you in the Oval Office...

You left out two important words.  I also believe it is quite illegal to have such online discussions with minors.  Either that or our elected officials wanted to enact such laws.  I'm hazy on whether or not they actually passed them.

Chris

[Perd Hapley]

Rabbi could add the two words and his posts would still be spot on.  In a way this whole game of which-perversion-is-worse is pointless, but the point is that the press is making much more of this than they would for others who are not Republicans.

[The Rabbi]

...But it is a far cry typing inappropriate messages on a computer "for minors" to having subordinates blow you in the Oval Office...

You left out two important words.  I also believe it is quite illegal to have such online discussions with minors.  Either that or our elected officials wanted to enact such laws.  I'm hazy on whether or not they actually passed them.

Chris

Fistful is right.  It doesn't matter.  I dont think it is illegal anyway.
Look, Barney Frank had his gay lover running a male prostitution ring out of his Georgetown condo.  And he is not only still in Congress but keeps getting re-elected.  N.J governor McGreevey was getting blackmailed by his homosexual lover.  And he finished his term in office.
When Republicans commit the slightest infraction, even if it is legal, they are forced to resign in disgrace.  When Democrats do it they are given sympathy and re-elected.  It is the double standard I object to.

[richyoung]

John F. Kennedy: - had sex with Nazi spy during WWII, (consequently getting his butt shipped off to the Pacific...), had sex with Marilyn Monroe and Mafia gun moll while President of the US and married to Jackie.
STATUS: martyr

Ted Kennedy: 1 girl dead, one raped on lawn.
STATUS: still in office

Patrick Kennedy:  DUI with accident
STATUS: still in office

Frank:  Fixed parking tickets for the clients of the prostitution ring that his "boy toy" was running out of the representative's office.
STATUS: still in office

Jefferson: Diverted Katrina rescue efforts to secure refrigerator full of bribe money
STATUS: still in office

Studds:  Had ACTUAL SEX with underage male page.
SATUS; re-nominated and re-elected five times.  Now retired.

Reynolds:  Had ACTUAL SEX with underage schoolgirl working on his campaign, in between diverting campaign funds into personal use and beating his wife.
STATUS: sentence commuted by Bill Clinton.  Hired by Jesse Jackson as a "youth counselor".(Who sez those dems have no sense of humor?)

Condit:  Had ACTUAL SEX with barely legal intern/Mossad honey trap, who later disappears - skeletal remains found 1 year later.
STATUS: renominated, but loses election.  No criminal charges.

Clinton: Had ACTUAL SEX with barely legal intern, including oral and instrumental sodomy AND use of tobacco in a government building.  Then commited perjury about it, while serving as the highest law enforcement officila in the country.
STATUS: re-nominated.  Re-elected.  Party hero and spokesman.

Thank GOD we have the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, full of men of such moral calibur, to protect us from the likes of:

Foley: sent naughty IMs and emails to underage pages. No actual sexual contact.
STATUS: hounded from office.

Packwood: clumsily asked for sex from various aquaintances,
STATUS: hounded from office

Ryan: allegedly tried to "get it on" with his wife, 7-of-9, with people watching.
STATUS: hounded out of Senate race.

...no double standard here!

[Perd Hapley]

I never said it didn't matter or that it was legal, but Rabbi and richyoung are correct about the double standard.

[BryanP]

Let's see here.  Clinton ... relations with an another adult.  McGreevey, relations with another adult.  Frank, relations with another adult.  Foley ... oh yeah.  There's the difference.  

Also, the Dem's don't hold themselves out as being the final bastion of Family Values, holding the bulwarks against a tide of vileness.  

Let me put it this way: Given a choice I'd let Clinton, McGreevey, or Frank babysit my nephew before I'd let Foley near him.

[The Rabbi]

Let's see here.  Clinton ... relations with an another adult.  McGreevey, relations with another adult.  Frank, relations with another adult.  Foley ... oh yeah.  There's the difference.  

Also, the Dem's don't hold themselves out as being the final bastion of Family Values, holding the bulwarks against a tide of vileness.  

Let me put it this way: Given a choice I'd let Clinton, McGreevey, or Frank babysit my nephew before I'd let Foley near him.

You must define relations differently from the rest of us.  You must define lots of things differently not see the difference between coercing actual sexual acts out of subordinates and suggestive chatting on the internet.

[Perd Hapley]

Also, the Dem's don't hold themselves out as being the final bastion of Family Values, holding the bulwarks against a tide of vileness.

Let's see here.  Because the Dem's have lower moral standards to begin with, that makes them better?  richyoung has listed more than one minor victim of Democratic politicians.  Care to comment on those?  

In any case, Democrats pretend to defend the rights of women, while using them for their pleasure.  They scream about the intransigence of Republican leaders who didn't do enough to stop Foley's advances to minor pages, while it is obvious they would have criticized them for "homophobia," had they done so.  They pretend to work for the well-being of American Blacks, while doing all they can to encourage the total destruction of their families and culture.  We can sling charges of hypocrisy all day.  Big deal.

[richyoung]

richyoung has listed more than one minor victim of Democratic politicians.  Care to comment on those?

The silence.  Deafening.

[Darwin]

If the best that y'all can come up with as a defense for Hastert's inaction in following up on the Foley complaints is that the Democrats are scumbags (which they most certainly are), it looks to me like Hastert is sunk. Good luck with that.

[The Rabbi]

If the best that y'all can come up with as a defense for Hastert's inaction in following up on the Foley complaints is that the Democrats are scumbags (which they most certainly are), it looks to me like Hastert is sunk. Good luck with that.

See Fistful's reply up above.  they were damned either way.

[Perd Hapley]

What "best" are you talking about?  This thread is not about Hastert.  There's been very little defense of Hastert, because very few of us really care about Hastert in this respect.  The only person who has spent any significant time defending Hastert is jfruser, in post 23.  Are you going to ignore that like you've ignored other points that contradict you? Hint:  Go back to the first page.

See Fistful's reply up above.  they were damned either way.

I don't really think that's a defense of Hastert.  Republicans get smeared for everything they do.  That's no reason for Republican inaction.

[Darwin]

Are you going to ignore that like you've ignored other points that contradict you?

I'm not sure I get your drift. Please define "that."

[Perd Hapley]

So you will ignore it.  Very well.

[Darwin]

If I could understand what you are asking me to do, I might try to accomodate you, but you are using what we professionals call an indefinite modifier.

[Perd Hapley]

A pronoun is a modifier?  What type of professional are you?  Not a professional reader, apparently.

Anyway.  Jfruser is the one who is defending Hastert - the rest of us are just annoyed at everything the Dems get away with.  You seem to be interested in Mr. Hastert, so why not respond to jfruser's defense of Hastert?  Why not defend your own statements in post 20 and answer my critique thereof?  Or do you admit that your point of view has been demolished?

[Darwin]

I stand corrected. I am so used to correcting misplaced modifiers that I misspoke and said "modifier" when I meant pronoun. Thank you for correcting me.

Regarding my statement in post 20, I haven't defended it because in spite of your blustery blather, you have said nothing to refute it. If the press hasn't reported all the examples of despicable behavior of the Democrats, how then do you know about them? To prove your point about the press not reporting Democratic deviance you cite example after example of Democratic deviance that you read about.... in the press. I see no reason to try to correct such circular (lack of) logic. I think the matter speaks for itself.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I stand corrected. I am so used to correcting misplaced modifiers that I misspoke and said "modifier" when I meant pronoun. Thank you for correcting me.

Regarding my statement in post 20, I haven't defended it because in spite of your blustery blather, you have said nothing to refute it. If the press hasn't reported all the examples of despicable behavior of the Democrats, how then do you know about them? To prove your point about the press not reporting Democratic deviance you cite example after example of Democratic deviance that you read about.... in the press. I see no reason to try to correct such circular (lack of) logic. I think the matter speaks for itself.

Are you suggesting that the degree of mainstream press coverage over sordid Democrat behavior is equal in magnitude and vigor to the mainstream press coverage of sordid Republican behavior?  Are you asserting that the only possible way to learn about the behavior of our elected representatives is via the reporting of the mainstream media?