<p>“Ouch. This just in. I guess the Republican leadership wasn’t as clueless as they’re now trying to claim”</p>
<p>Ouch? It must be painful to twist and spin, huh? Gossip and innuendo aren’t facts and the gentleman in question has said different things to different news outlets, so . . .</p>
<p>“or that murderer Ted Kennedy on the Democrat side, or that adulterer Clinton”</p>
<p>Funny - I would have written “that adulterer Kennedy or the murderer Clinton”.</p>
<p>Meanwhile the party of family values can’t wait to nominate Rudi, who must have had his adulterous jollies from rolling with his sweetie two doors down from his young daughter, or Newt, that poor sufferer of “displaced hypochondria by proxy”.</p>
<p>Gla, what would be the felony? I’m not a lawyer, so I really would like to know. Thank you.</p>
<p>You’re right, Kluge, it is disturbing … about Foley. You didn’t include a link to your comment but in this article, Matthew Loraditch states the reprehensible contacts weren’t reported:</p>
<p>
<a href=“http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/florida_news/article/0,2820,TCP_24432_5034317,00.html[/url]”>http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/florida_news/article/0,2820,TCP_24432_5034317,00.html</a></p>
<p>If the GOP leaders knew Foley was sending these IMs to pages, they are all pathetic. But we don’t know that yet.</p>
<p>Well, they sure CAN take away his subcommittee chairmanships.</p>
<p>Clinton a murderer? Mini, explain your joke?</p>
<p>Zooser:
Not sure about Louisiana or Mississippi (or exactly here the boy was) but in CO
</p>
<p>I am not saying that Foley committed a felony, but his emails make it suspicious and the situation should have been referred to a law enforcement body</p>
<p>
They did tell Foley to stop - apparently in late 2005 as reported by the Washington Post as set forth in my earlier comment.</p>
<p>Gla thank you for posting that, explaining what you meant AND not attacking me for asking. I appreciate the courtesy!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That certainly is a proven method. LOL I often use it with my childeren. I’ve never tried it with sexual predators though.</p>
<p>“Clinton a murderer? Mini, explain your joke?”</p>
<p>Joke? These are things I don’t joke about.</p>
<p>Rather than bomb military installations, or take out palaces, Clinton decided to bomb wastewater treatment plants and withheld basic medical aid (like aspirins, or simple antibiotics), with the result that more than 500,000 Iraqi children died (400,000 below the age of 5). "I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.” said his Secretary of State. </p>
<p>U.N. aid coordinator Denis Halliday resigned. “I’ve been using the word ‘genocide’", he said, "because this is a deliberate policy to destroy the people of Iraq. I’m afraid I have no other view.” I personally spent much time in the mid-'90s raising funds for water purification plants that Clinton chose to make it a crime for Americans to repair.</p>
<p>European nations agreed, using the word “genocide”, and several cases were filed with the International Court of Justice at the Hague, and caused the creation of the “Oil for Food” program.</p>
<p>There isn’t a family in Iraq today that didn’t have a child killed by the actions of Bill Clinton. If 61% of Iraqis approve of killing Americans, they have profoundly good reasons.</p>
<p>GLA,</p>
<p>Hindsight is always 20/20. If we agree that Congress should initiate criminal proceedings against a member based on questionable conduct, there are several people currently serving in Congress that we need to discuss with authorities.</p>
<p>Zoos - you crack me up! You post with consistent, reliable, knee-jerk partisanship, then get all huffy with anyone who points it out. </p>
<p>Get it: You’re not impartial. You’re not “just curious.” You don’t view events without screening them through a strictly partisan lens. Claiming the contrary doesn’t make it so, and accusing me of “foaming at the mouth” for pointing out the obvious inconsistancies between what you claim and the opinions you actually express doesn’t make them go away.</p>
<p>DRJ:
I wouldn’t call this hindsight. I can assure you if someone sent my son emails like Foleys they would be reported to the authorities. I didn’t call for ‘criminal proceedings’, but there should have been an investigation. I also think that Foley went wayyyyy beyond ‘questionable conduct’ in his emails.</p>
<p>Get it: You’re not impartial. You’re not “just curious.” You don’t view events without screening them through a strictly partisan lens. "</p>
<p>Get it Kluge? You repeatedly attribute opinions and thoughts to me that I don’t possess. You repeatedly “translate” what I actually post into what you presume that I intend. You have absolutely no idea what I am or am not, but what you do is repeatedly bully me and twist my posts. If you were ever courteous enough to answer questions, rather than twist them into something they’re not, you might see that, but you’re all about making your personal attacks and have no interest in dialogue. Partisan? Not on this one, pal. I have been adamant in condemning Congressman Foley in no uncertain terms.</p>
<p>Well, then why did you yoke him with Patrick Kennedy, when Rudi and Newt would have been so much more appropriate?</p>
<p>Why did Alexander take up the Foley matter first with Reynolds, the chairman of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee? Who is making this partisan?</p>
<p>Sorry, I don’t know who Rudi is, and I don’t know enough about Newt. I don’t know anything about your political leanings…anyway my statement was meant to be in jest…I was talking about how people make all sorts of accusations and call politicians all sorts of names, and even if they’re right, they go too far when they smear the entire party as the same. For example, calling all Republicans senseless for the decisions of Rumsfeld is wrong.</p>
<p>Zoos - Foley isn’t the issue at this point, as I think everyone recognizes, and to claim nonpartisanship based on condemning him is pretty weak, don’t you think? The issue is why wasn’t Foley reined in by the people who were in a position to do so, and who had what is now clear to have been ample notification of the problem. I’m not doubting that you actually believe that you’re even handed with your thougths and observations. I’m just trying to give you a little of the “gift a giftie gie us”. You are one of the most consistently partisan posters on CC. Don’t blame the mirror.</p>
<p>With Zoosermom on this one… obviously, it’s not a felony in many states to have sexually explicit discussions with minors. In many states, it is only illegal for those over 18 to have sex with those under 16 - physical contact that is not intercourse is permissible. Furthermore, there are strong First Amendment issues with speech that are not implicated with physical contact. Very legitimate question.</p>
<p>As for the act itself… EEEEWWWWWWW. Sick, disguisting, and worse for doing that with kids. If you want to have cybersex with people of the same gender, fine - but the age thing bothers me, a lot. Kids don’t have the resources (emotionally, mentally, and psychologically) to get out of uncomfortable situations, nor to get an older, powerful person to back off. Yes, I know that I live in another era, but we should work to be sure that our kids can grow up free of sexual pressure, harassment, and the feeling of powerlessness that comes from being in way over your head. </p>
<p>I really feel badly for those kids. Seems like another version of the Catholic priest abuse scandals. When are we going to start telling men to act like men and that “getting some” doesn’t justify morally rephrensible behaviour?</p>
<p>Very happy that Foley at least resigned (something that Clinton and Kennedy lacked the grace to do). I do hope that the conservatives unite against him and his actions. </p>
<p>Sick. Just sick.</p>