<p>Okay, I take it the answer is “No” on CREW, et al. </p>
<p>Dadguy,</p>
<p>Tony Snow does have kids. As for Foley, I have him at 5 victim cards and counting: Gay, alcoholic, mental health, abused as a child, and abused by clergy. Are there any he hasn’t yet claimed?</p>
<p>A thought that occurred to me as I was driving through traffic listening to the radio tonight–isn’t it amazing that Brian Ross has located an apparently large number of people who have either set their IM protocol to “save” or printed out (and saved) all of their IM conversations with Foley. And then sat on them for three years. Yes, of course, I do that all the time. The CREW stuff won’t come out in the MSM until the Feds make it necessary from a journalistic credibility standpoint, DrJ.</p>
<p>Almost as amazing as Foley thinking this stuff would never catch up to him.</p>
<p>Hereshoping - you were the source of the study which contradicted your claims. You included a link to an article about sexual misconduct in schools: <a href=“http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artID=15581[/url]”>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artID=15581</a> That article discusses a study, and links to it: <a href=“http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf[/url]”>http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf</a> I went to the source material, the study, and quoted the section on same-sex offenders:
I also commented on other parts of the study which discussed under-reporting of certain types of conduct. None of this is news - it’s widely reported information that you seem to choose to ignore. I also pointed out that some conduct which would you would consider sexual exploitation among gays is legally authorized between heterosexual couples - citing John Mark Karr marrying a 16 year old girl, who says she was pregnant at the time. He wasn’t prosecuted for that - he was given a marriage license. If the teen had been a boy, it would have been “pederasty”; because she was a girl, it was “marriage.” When you’re performing a calculation of the percentage of homosexuals vs. heterosexuals who target teens for sex do you include the likes of John Mark Karr in your calculation? Is that clear enough for you?</p>
<p>kluge: These studies deal with EDUCATORS ONLY – and they also include pre-pubescent children – is that clear enough for you?</p>
<p>
Completely agree with you, Dadguy. Smart fisherpersons know how to entice the fish. You should see the look on the faces of the bass I reel in–they always look so surprised. Or, just look at Kluge. Frankly, I don’t think Foley even rose to the level of a bass. He was a pretty obvious carp sitting at the bottom of a pond, to those who played him for three years.</p>
<p>HH what is your point? what are you trying to say?</p>
<p>Driver and Dadguy,</p>
<p>I’m slow. Is it amazing that Foley thought the IMs wouldn’t catch up to him or are you referring to his apparently troubled background (alcohol, abuse, etc.)? Maybe it’s all/none of the above.</p>
<p>EDIT1: CGM and I have to ask for clarification at the same time. Not a good sign.</p>
<p>EDIT2: Nevermind. Thanks, Driver. The carp cleared it up for me.</p>
<p>DRJ4: The only reports I’ve seen about CREW say that they reported what they knew to the FBI - which was just the initial Lousiana e-mails - with 24 hours. What’s to discuss? And what are the mysterious “other” websites? Other than the stopsexpredators blog someone (you?) linked to, I don’t know of any other mysterious blogs on point. Can you be more specific?</p>
<p>Nope, but only because I have to go eat. Anyway, I have more questions than answers on CREW. To begin with, I find it interesting that CREW acquired the IMs and I wonder how that came about. I also think it’s curious that CREW stayed silent for 2 months, presumably leaving Congressional pages at risk from Foley and whoever else is being monitored. Finally, I wonder who in the Democratic leadership CREW told and what those leaders did to protect the children.</p>
<p>DRJ4 - what is your source of information that CREW had the IM’s for 2 months? And are you suggesting that CREW did not notify the FBI as reported?</p>
<p>Hereshoping:
Not all of the studies analyzed by the report did. Corbett, et al - “Sexual Harassment in High School” for example - clear enough for you? - found that only 7.5 % of the sexual misconduct they studied was same-sex. Are you suggesting that people who work in schools (the study included all school employees, such as bus drivers, custodians, etc. as well as teachers) are somehow different from the public at large when it comes to their proclivity for sexual misconduct?</p>
<p>They turned it over to the FBI…and hoped they would do their job…</p>
<p>FOX News also had the emails…and did nothing, didn’t turn them over to the FBI…</p>
<p>Are you saying that CREW didn’t do what they should</p>
<p>They informed the FBI, the democratic leadership weren’t informed…it is almost funny how you want to blame CREW for not doing enough to protect the children when the republican leadership knew for months and months and months and only AFTER ABC got the story did they do anything</p>
<p>My understanding is that CREW turned over the emails to the FBI. ABC received the IM’s after breaking the story on the emails. Am I misinformed?</p>
<p>DRJ4- what did CREW do that you wonder about…seriouslly, what should they have done to protect the kids </p>
<p>what did the republican leadership do to protect the kids? come on, tell me, since they knew for much longer than CREW ever did…and what would you have CREW do, beyond telling the FBI!!! The FBI…it like, they are the biggies, aren’t they…and if the FBI did nothing, is that CREW’s fault…if the House leadership did basicalyl nithing, is that CREW’s fault</p>
<p>truely amazing that CREW is blamed for not doing enough, while the people who knew for months what did they do?</p>
<p>as for the IMs…once the story broke, the pages spoke out…so how much work would it have been for the House Clerk, or the FBI to check into this, much less the House Ethics comittee, but is there even one of those…cause they don’t seem to do much</p>
<p>And Hastert and Shimkus and Reynolds and Boner knew ABOUT the emails and didn’t ask or refused to see them.</p>
<p>question DRJ4</p>
<p>how come the house leadership didn’t read the emails. and took Foley’s word for it they were "It was over familiarity, over kind chit chat he said he was… "</p>
<p>is that protecting the children…not even reading the text of the emails…guess it is plausible deniability…if you didn’t read it you can’t be taken to task for doing nothing about it</p>
<p>
I’m never the Spelling Nazi unless the context requires it…in this case, it does. Watch it, gla. “Boehner” isn’t an exotic German sexual term, nor is it pronounced that way.</p>
<p>Kluge, </p>
<p>I committed the cardinal sin of conflating the emails and the IMs in my earlier comment. I’m sorry. This is getting too complicated for my feeble, hungry brain, although I am curious when CREW learned about the IMs. </p>
<p>I believe that CREW did notify the FBI about the Foley emails in July as they claim on the [url=<a href=“http://www.citizensforethics.org/]website[/url”>http://www.citizensforethics.org/]website[/url</a>]. As you may recall, while I agreed that the emails were suspect, I disagreed as to what the GOP leaders should have done about them. Nevertheless, since I was seriously outvoted on that issue, please tell me … </p>
<p>Why didn’t CREW and the Democratic leadership, whom they undoubtedly told about this, do something more to protect the children back in July?</p>
<p>
Crew turned the emails over to the FBI. What makes you say they turned them over to the Democratic Leadership?
Sorry driver, typo. Boener</p>