Congressman Foley resigned

[Moonbeam]

The Republican party curried the favor of the religious right by playing to their homophobic hate and now that hate threatens to turn and consume them. Karma is such a bitch.

 

[ProfJohn]

I found this page scandal interesting.

In 1983, Representatives Dan Crane (R-Ill.) and Gerry Studds (D-Mass.) were charged with having engaged in sexual relationships with 17-year-old congressional pages. In Crane's case, it was a 1980 relationship with a female page and in Studds's case, it was a 1973 relationship with a male page. Both representatives immediately pleaded guilty. On July 14, 1983, the House Ethics Committee reprimanded both. However, Representative Newt Gingrich demanded the expulsion of both Congressmen. On July 20, the House voted for censure, the first time that censure had been imposed for sexual misconduct. Crane, who tearfully apologized for his transgression, lost his bid for reelection in 1984. Studds, however, refused to apologize (even calling a press conference with the former page, in which both stated that he and the page were consenting adults at the time of the relationship and that it was therefore not the business of others to censure them for their private relationship), and he continued to be reelected until his retirement in 1997.

Look... Newt is such a good guy, wanted the perverts kicked out. To bad congress didn't do that. Perhaps if these guys were kicked out it would have set the precedence that if you mess with a page you get thrown out on the street, no questions asked, but the Democratically controlled congress could not see fit to do so.

Notice that the Republican was not re-elected, but the Democrat who has SEX with his 17 year old page was reelected several times, he even tried to defend his actions. Maybe Foley should have switched parties and then tried to defend his behavior as well

 

[DealMonkey]

Why don't you go back 20+ years to find a lame excuse, ProfJohn? Keep on apologizing though, it's downright amusing to watch you self-destruct just like the rest of the GOP.

 

[SophalotJack]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: dahunan
Drudge today was calling the victims "BEASTS" and saying they played Foley and set him up and took advantage of him.. That damn liberal media again


BTW Do any of you Republicans even care about the youths he was grooming to molest? - THEY ARE THE VICTIMS.. NOT YOUR PARTY OF GANGSTERS

dahunan, none of us have defended the behavior of Foley, I have not seen one post saying that what he did was ok. We have been talking about other things.

The complaint us Republicans have is the timing of this story, was it staged to do maximum damage?
And the guilt by association that the Democrats are using.

Foley has resigned for sending IMs to pages who were of legal age in Washington DC, i.e. they could have had sex and nothing would have been legally wrong with that.
At the same time William Jefferson, who had $100,000 in his freezer is still running for office. I guess the message here is that if you are a pervert you should be run out of town and anyone who ever talked to you should be run out of town as well, but if you abuse your power and take bribes from foreign corporations you should not only keep you seat but go ahead and run for re-election. Nice standards....

Notice, didn't mention Clinton once although I certainly did want when someone mentioned having sex before or during a house vote... reminds me of a little rose garden ceremony, have to find the details on your own though

I totally get your point. I would rather have an elected govt official of a very high ranking mentally and (quite possibly if left ignored) physically abuse / molest my children then have a different govt official have cash in his freezer that has been brought into this country (even though there is no proof of any foul play, whatsoever for the money).

molested child -- 1
earning the US $100,00 -- 0


And you did mention Clinton... so nice job, repubby.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The Republican party curried the favor of the religious right by playing to their homophobic hate and now that hate threatens to turn and consume them. Karma is such a bitch.

Get over this "homophobic hate" line already. There is at most a very small amount of Republicans who would count as being homophobic. The most religious of the right would not hate anyone because it goes against their teachings, they would instead reach out and try to help these gays set their lives straight by accepting Jesus and giving up their "sinful" ways and all that.
I am not against "gay marriage" because I hate gays, but because I want to defend the institute of marriage as that of one between a man and a woman, as it was intended and created to be.

I do think it is sad that this scandal with Foley is being treated a little different that it would be if he was hitting on female pages, but I guess that is to be expected still.

BTW: Read through this threat again, the people who use the words Pedophile and perverted the most are those on the left... hmmmmm

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Why don't you go back 20+ years to find a lame excuse, ProfJohn? Keep on apologizing though, it's downright amusing to watch you self-destruct just like the rest of the GOP.

Perhaps you need to learn to understand sarcasm, I posted the scandal because it seems to be the first page sex scandal, that is publicly known, and because the house did not kick them out as it should have.
Plus I like Newt, the last line is sarcasm... guess the wink wasn't enough for you huh?

Ps. from a 1983 Time article
"Crane, a dentist from Danville, came to Capitol Hill in 1979. A year later, he and a female House page, then 17, had sex four or five times at his suburban apartment. The page, testifying that she "found the Congressman as an older man very attractive," admitted that she was "perhaps more responsible for the sexual relationship than he was."

ProfJohn for congress!!! Look out pages here I come <---that is sarcasm too

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: SophalotJack
I totally get your point. I would rather have an elected govt official of a very high ranking mentally and (quite possibly if left ignored) physically abuse / molest my children then have a different govt official have cash in his freezer that has been brought into this country (even though there is no proof of any foul play, whatsoever for the money).

molested child -- 1
earning the US $100,00 -- 0


And you did mention Clinton... so nice job, repubby.

How about this... both should be kicked out. Should be no room for either in congress.
In a perfect world we would be able to look at the House and Senate and hold them in high regard, but it seems that we now accept sexual scandals, bribery and pet pork projects as par for the course, it is a shame what congress has become.
Clay and Webster would be ashamed of what congress has become. And BOTH parties are guilty.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am not against "gay marriage" because I hate gays, but because I want to defend the institute of marriage as that of one between a man and a woman, as it was intended and created to be.

you don't think the idea that allowing gays to marry will intrinsically destroy the institution of marriage isn't at all hateful?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am not against "gay marriage" because I hate gays, but because I want to defend the institute of marriage as that of one between a man and a woman, as it was intended and created to be.

you don't think the idea that allowing gays to marry will intrinsically destroy the institution of marriage isn't at all hateful?

Nope I believe that laws should be passed that offer gays the chance to have "civil unions" and that marriage should be kept as a religious institution. If that means changing current marriage laws in this country to "civil union" laws then so be it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Something we can all agree on???

Found a good article on Fox of all places that says the identity of the page who sent the e-mail and IMs to Foley should be protected.

Is this ONE thing we can all agree on?

Indeed, the only evidence of the victim's wishes came last year when he and his parents attempted to privately and quietly resolve the matter; they asked Foley to cease communication.
Will the media respect the teenager's privacy and reveal only what is necessary for them to accurately portray Foley's behavior and any possible cover-up? Or will they make 'a meal' of this young man?

And

In short, Foley's victim does not seem to have supplied his private correspondence to anyone. Indeed, the exchange may have been stolen from Foley's computer or files. There is also no evidence that the victim ever made a public accusation; the closest to this was his private request for assistance in making contact from Foley cease.
The media claims to be genuinely horrified by the exploitation of a teenager by a powerful man. If so, the equally powerful media should stop exploiting the victim's emails. It should protect rather than dangle the specifics of his identity.
In short, the media should give this kid a break.
Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

Media Should Protect Identity of Foley Page

 

[Craig234]

Get over this "homophobic hate" line already. There is at most a very small amount of Republicans who would count as being homophobic.

John, you seem to have a tendency to just make things about about the republicans to make the party look better than it is.

What's next - they're the party who forced LBJ to agree to the civil rights bill?

Support for Gay Adoption
Republicans - For: 30% Opposed: 65%
Democrats - For: 55% Opposed: 40%

Strong opposition to equal marital rights for gays
Republicans - 41% (was 59% in 2004)
Democrats - 21%

Support for gays openly in military
Republicans - For: 46%, Opposed: 46% (was 60% opposed in 1994)
Democrats - For: 70%, Opposed: 23%

Link to Poll

Or this poll:

The issue of gay marriage has a clear political component. Both Democrats and independents (39% each) are twice as likely as Republicans (18%) to approve of gay marriage. This political gap between Democrats and Republicans exists across all age levels.

Another poll

The republicans wante dto get out more republican voters to the ballot boxes, and to do so they put anti-gay marriage initiatives on the ballot as a top issue for them.

You are not accurately describing the republican party, who are the home for homophobes, even if they are careful enough to use some mealy mouthed phrases.

Just as the republicans were the party for racists as of the late 60's while not saying so in so many words, using careful phrases to make it clear.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Drudge today was calling the victims "BEASTS" and saying they played Foley and set him up and took advantage of him.. That damn liberal media again


BTW Do any of you Republicans even care about the youths he was grooming to molest? - THEY ARE THE VICTIMS.. NOT YOUR PARTY OF GANGSTERS

Molest? Why do you assume the boy didn't want to have sex with Foley? Maybe the kid is gay or bisexual. Foley is OK looking for an old guy, and power is an aphrodesiac. Being screwed by an older guy is a not uncommon fantasy for gay teens/ young men. You could argue that Democrats are ruthlessly exploiting the young guy involved - considering the young man himself has not gone to the media or police, and by all accounts didn't want to pursue the issue, yet somehow these conversations have been made public. Not that Republicans are any better.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Yeah yeah whatever. Since Americans are so stupid, why are you hanging around? G'day, Mate. :roll:

Howard is a Bush fanboi anyway.

Yeah, Crikey.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: gersson

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
So now Foley is, a victum of child abuse, a drunk, mentally unstable and a wannabe child molester? This guy should run for President.

I'd vote for him over bush. Of course, I'd vote for Charlie Manson over Bush.

:disgust:

Yeah, you got it right. You know where your little emoticons can go too I think. Too bad you don't feel that same digust at Bush's actions over the last 6 years....

 

[UberNeuman]

Did ya see the one where Fox "News" labeled Foley as a Democrat?

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Yeah, the Repubican spin machine mouthpiece is shifting into high gear....
Oh, apparently it's been revealed that Foley has been attempting to get into kid's pants for many, many years, and the leadership has known about his prclivities since 1995!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5405596.stm

But but, he's a Democrat, says Fox. :disgust:

But but, my priest molested me, says Foley.

But but, we didn't know, lies Hastert.
The party of personal reponsibility is anything but responsible.

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am not against "gay marriage" because I hate gays, but because I want to defend the institute of marriage as that of one between a man and a woman, as it was intended and created to be.

you don't think the idea that allowing gays to marry will intrinsically destroy the institution of marriage isn't at all hateful?

Call me crazy but shouldn't you worry about divorce destroying the institution of marriage before gays marrying.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Can't wait for the apologists explanation of this one. I'm betting it has the word Clinton in it though.

I wish the mods would assign a nice vacation for anyone who utters "Clinton" in a completely unrelated thread. Mods? Are you listening?!

Melvin Jay "Mel" Reynolds (born January 8, 1952) was a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives from the state of Illinois. Reynolds currently works for Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition.

Reynolds was born in Mound Bayou, Mississippi and he graduated from Roosevelt University and the University of Illinois. An academic achiever, he won a Rhodes Scholarship to Lincoln College in the University of Oxford.

Reynolds was unsuccessful in his 1986, 1988, and 1990 campaigns against Congressman Gus Savage. However, Reynolds was able to defeat Savage in 1992. He served in the House of Representatives from 1993 to 1995.

In August 1994, he was indicted for having sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer. Despite the charges, he continued his campaign and was re-elected in November 1994. Reynolds initially denied the charges, which he claimed were racially motivated. On August 22, 1995 he was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. He resigned his seat on October 1, 1995.

Reynolds was sentenced to five years in prison and expected to be released in 1998. However, in April 1997, he was convicted on 15 unrelated counts of bank fraud and lying to SEC investigators. These charges resulted in an additional sentence of 78 months in federal prison. Reynolds served all of his first sentence and served forty-two months in prison for the later charges. At that point, U.S. President Bill Clinton commuted the sentence for bank fraud. As a result, Reynolds was released from prison and served the remaining time in a half way house. [1][2]

In 2004, he was overwhelmingly defeated by Jesse Jackson, Jr., in his attempt to win back his old House seat.

How can one NOT bring up Clinton, when you can find direct examples for comparison?

Note, not apologizing, rather putting some historical context to it. What is it with Democrats, Rhodes scholars and 15-19 year olds? :shocked:

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Yeah, the Repubican spin machine mouthpiece is shifting into high gear....
Oh, apparently it's been revealed that Foley has been attempting to get into kid's pants for many, many years, and the leadership has known about his prclivities since 1995!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5405596.stm

But but, he's a Democrat, says Fox. :disgust:

But but, my priest molested me, says Foley.

But but, we didn't know, lies Hastert.
The party of personal reponsibility is anything but responsible.

Please identify the bolded section of your comment.

 

[dmcowen674]

How can Republicans compare a Gay Republican that preys on underage boys to Clinton that got a blowob from a consenting adult female???

This Country is insane.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Yeah, the Repubican spin machine mouthpiece is shifting into high gear....
Oh, apparently it's been revealed that Foley has been attempting to get into kid's pants for many, many years, and the leadership has known about his prclivities since 1995!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5405596.stm

But but, he's a Democrat, says Fox. :disgust:

But but, my priest molested me, says Foley.

But but, we didn't know, lies Hastert.
The party of personal reponsibility is anything but responsible.

Please identify the bolded section of your comment.

I seem to have gotten the mod riled. Check all the evidence discovered so far (not just the stuff provided by the Republican spin machine, FOX news....) before accusing me of lying. The language Foley used is illegal, according to many legal scholars (this is very explicit sexual stuff, involving masturbation, sodomy, etc) and it could still be revealed that he carried out his perversions. Why- exactly- do you take issue with the statement:
"apparently it's been revealed that Foley has been attempting to get into kid's pants for many, many years, and the leadership has known about his prclivities since 1995!"
I stand by the statement. Read the link, do some research.

 

[Strk]

Defense by blaming someone else.....

 

[HomerJS]

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh yesterday and he was echoing one of the Republican talking points. Blame the kids. Both him and the callers were claiming the kids were not innocent and that Foley was likely setup.

Using that logic Limbaugh and the other right wing parrots should have stood up and defended Debra LaFave. She claimed her 14 yr old student persued her.

BTW - I thought those guys claimed they don't get talking points from the RNC?

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Rush.... That drug addicted pervert should not be the primary moralist for the Republican party, though he is.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Yeah, the Repubican spin machine mouthpiece is shifting into high gear....
Oh, apparently it's been revealed that Foley has been attempting to get into kid's pants for many, many years, and the leadership has known about his prclivities since 1995!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5405596.stm

But but, he's a Democrat, says Fox. :disgust:

But but, my priest molested me, says Foley.

But but, we didn't know, lies Hastert.
The party of personal reponsibility is anything but responsible.

Please identify the bolded section of your comment.

I seem to have gotten the mod riled. Check all the evidence discovered so far (not just the stuff provided by the Republican spin machine, FOX news....) before accusing me of lying. The language Foley used is illegal, according to many legal scholars (this is very explicit sexual stuff, involving masturbation, sodomy, etc) and it could still be revealed that he carried out his perversions. Why- exactly- do you take issue with the statement:
"apparently it's been revealed that Foley has been attempting to get into kid's pants for many, many years, and the leadership has known about his prclivities since 1995!"
I stand by the statement. Read the link, do some research.

I read the link.

At this point, nothing except e-mails has come forward, I have not heard of any "private" meetings with any of the pages.

You seem to be reaching for theory rather than operating on existing facts.

You are making a statement that has not been validated - becomes slander.

I do not like what he did or the way he behaved; no support from me - he abused his position and responsiblities to the people that he represented.


Also, where did you rile a Mod? I see no comments from a Mod in any of your posts.