<p>the sexual part was reported by other pages as having occured on AOL instant messeging…</p>
<p>we shall see indeed</p>
<p>as for Hillary staying, what a wife or husband forgives or tolerates in the other is a private matter…if she chooses to stay with him, why not?</p>
<p>Many couples have a party who strays, and work it out…guess to some instant divorce is the answer after a lifetime together…so much for trying to keep marriages strong…</p>
<p>That’s my whole point, NJres. The headline screams “…sexually explicit…”. Now, I could be wrong, but my understanding about basic bicycle design, construction and operation, etc. make it sort of hard to dress this up as “sexually explicit”. </p>
<p>Maybe there’s some very interesting way to do things on bikes that I haven’t yet discovered.</p>
<p>Hayden, I just don’t think there’s enough verifiable information to speculate. Even if he wrote a zillion very pornograph IMs, the headline still appears to be not in concommitance with the article - it promises, but doesn’t deliver.</p>
<p>Odd, I agree, to resign without much of a fight.</p>
<p>in case LTS missed it, this was also in the headline of the ABC blog:</p>
<p>Hours earlier, ABC News had read excerpts of instant messages provided by former male pages who said the congressman, under the AOL Instant Messenger screen name Maf54, made repeated references to sexual organs and acts.</p>
<p>(If you google, and read other headlines, they talk about email and inappropriate- but others mention the AOL messages as well)</p>
<p>Does that answer your question?</p>
<p>Mr. Foley wrote, "Hey kid, I want to … with my … when we meet in … By the time I’m finished with you, your … will be … with … and then I’ll …until … And then we can … on the … with … Wouldn’t that be great?</p>
<p>Love, Mark</p>
<p>(what do you want them to publish exactly?)</p>
<p>lts:</p>
<p>The problem is that a multiple term member of the House of Reps should know what is appropriate to send in an email.
Any contact between an older man, (sorry guys, statistically men are more likely to be sexual predators), and a minor has to follow certain socially accepted rules. If it looks creepy, he should know not to do it!</p>
<p>He should lose his job for reasons of stupidity even if he is innocent!</p>
<p>Edit: Those explicit posts seal the deal.</p>
<p>In the House, Foley was co-chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children Caucus.</p>
<p>What, he didn’t read the material to see how kids are approached? What is appropriate?</p>
<p>NYTimes article posted late this afternoon:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-Congressman-E-Mails.html?hp&ex=1159588800&en=d05509f213b99083&ei=5094&partner=homepage[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-Congressman-E-Mails.html?hp&ex=1159588800&en=d05509f213b99083&ei=5094&partner=homepage</a></p>
<p>Spinner, I don’t disagree with your comments, on surface, and in principal. </p>
<p>I’m merely asking where is the evidence of sexual explicit material promised by the headline. </p>
<p>So far, still don’t see it. I’m not saying such emails do not exist. I’m merely asking where they are, exactly. Which explicit post are you referring to? </p>
<p>And Mini, did Foley really write that? Do you have a source link?</p>
<p>I haven’t a clue what he wrote, and if he wrote what I quoted, what did he say? (I use to love Mad-Libs. ;))</p>
<p>That is absolutely crazy to say Clinton should be tried for war crimes. Clinton did the right thing in he Balkans. He saved many lives and stopped a genocide. I am sure the albanians want Clinton tried for saving their lives. According to your logic, any preisdent who engaged in any military operation should be tried for war crimes if one civillian died.</p>
<p>Who said ANYTHING about the Balkans? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>well what war crimes should he be tried for</p>
<p>Those for which European nations charged him with genocide - half a million children dead (“Its a hard choice, but I think, we think, its worth it.” Madeline Albright, [60 Minutes, May 11, 1996), and which forced the creation of the “Oil for Food” program.</p>
<p>lts:</p>
<p>They don’t have to be explicit. They look bad and that’s enough.</p>
<p>Sorry, I’m heading out to a democratic fund raiser, so I won’t get to see how this pans out until later-</p>
<p>motherdear - you mentioned Barney Franks had an affair with an intern. Are you sure? I thought it was a staffer, and he (Franks) claimed that he was not aware his staffer was doing illegal/immoral activities. </p>
<p>I agree that it was extrememly problematic, but there is a difference in the actions of consenting adults, versus 50years olds and minor children.</p>
<p>ABC evening news just led w/the story…sounds ugly and like it’s gonna get uglier (SPeaker Hastert is starting an investigation Congress-wide into “relationships” between members & pages)…and while the initially-reported emails may not have been sexually explicit (gotta agree w/LTS’s analysis of the bike comment!), the IMs ABC reported at 6:30 (EDT) sure were (maf54 (Foley) suggesting he’d like to slip offf the page’s boxers??? Hard to find a non-sexual explanation of that)…</p>
<p>What a mess. Makes me sad for democracy and particularly sad for the many honorable, hard-working, finely-motivated lawmakers who will all be tarred by the brush of this scandal…</p>
<p>Interns and staffers are college students and older. At the minimum, the staffer/intern was working for Frank.</p>
<p>Pages are currently only juniors in hs. Back in the old days, a boy student could be a Page for multiple years of hs. They also boarded with various people around the Hill area. Because of the impropriety with Studds et. al. , the minimum Page Age is 16 on the first day of service, a dormitory was built and academic-year pages have to live in it. The Pages are given specific instruction on what to do about any inappropriate attention from anyone, not just the Congressmen. Girls have been pages since the 1970s.</p>
<p>Latetoschool – if you want to see the sexually explicit stuff, go here:
<a href=“http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/BrianRoss/[/url]”>http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/BrianRoss/</a></p>
<p>If you still can’t find it, PM me and I’ll send you the direct link to the PDF file with the transcript of the IM conversation.</p>
<p>If true, this behavior is inexcusable. Whenever there is a difference in power between two people, there is always the danger of abuse and harrassment. I don’t think it has anything to do with someone’s political party, and I think it’s unfortunate when people try to gain political advantage in such a case. I pretty sure the GOP doesn’t sanction or promote such behavior.</p>
<p>LOL. Motherdear, I just googled the circumstances. Frank’s first encounter with the person at issue was as a male prostitute. So he didn’t exactly have to seduce him. But clearly this person was not met or abused by an employer - it began from the position of, shall we say, an independent contractor . . . </p>
<p>In any case, whatever we may think of Frank’s situation, it clearly has no relationship (other than the male/male thing) to the Foley situation.</p>