<p>“Now it’s time for a spanking.”</p>
<p>The House shouldn’t be investigating consenting adults for doing that in private, either.</p>
<p>Thanks AM. Nothing happened to me or my kids personally, just so you know. I started looking into facts and figures about much of this stuff due to a combination of the Catholic priest scandals and the insanely politically correct “health” textbooks my kids were bringing home. I learned that coming up against much of the political correctness in our public schools is like hitting a brick wall (similar to talking to some posters here on cc). 
Many people are set on believing what they want to think the world is like instead of what it is. I think this attitude is hurting our kids more than people know.</p>
<p>It really doesn’t matter whether Denny resigns, or whether he is gay. He is going to be investigated by Speaker Pelosi in either case.</p>
<p>So I hope he stays around - keeps the pot boiling for another month, while increasing numbers of Iraqis approve of killing Americans, Senator Frist expresses his love for Mullah Omar, the insurgency is in its final throes, and preparations for the victory party can continue.</p>
<p>I’m waiting for the Abramoff thing to break. I hope they give Denny vertical stripes - they look slimming.</p>
<p>I am not "sticking up for Foley. It is fine with me that the creepy guy is gone. But what he did was probably not illegal–just creepy. This is just another overblown Washington media circus that has about zero impact on anything that really matters. Like gas prices. ;-)</p>
<p>barrons:
should ‘creepy’ people be forced out of office against the wishes of their constituents? doesn’t seem fair.</p>
<p>Should Foley have said “I did nothing against House rules, nothing requiring my resignation”, apologized to anyone offended by his actions and just moved on with his campaign?</p>
<p>mini:
I consider myself a fairly well-informed person, but as I opined in another thread this morning, I watched the Bill Moyer’s show about Abramoff last night and just about had a heart attack. Indeed, this Foley thing looks like utter nonsense when you really take a look at what’s going on in our government. </p>
<p>It made me feel abslutely desperate.</p>
<p>I watched a bit of the Abramoff piece last night. All it was missing was the theme music from the Godfather. </p>
<p>What a shame the gop only gains power so often and they blow it by their actions once in control.</p>
<p>People who actually believe in the party and it’s concepts are having to defend actions by the people they voted in. Those actions speak of no fear of consquences because the “true believers” will never believe the facts from any source other than those in leadership, right up to the jail sentences. That’s when they realize that the people they elected aren’t just like them.</p>
<p>I’m a pretty well-read guy, with a pretty good vocabulary. I’m pretty sure I’d never seen the word “ephebophilia” before this thread. I don’t know how to pronounce it, and every time I see it it makes me think of a tropical disease of some sort. </p>
<p>The techinical meaning of “pedophilia” is sexual attraction towards pre-adolescents: fine. But an accepted and common alternate meaning is “Sexual attraction towards children below the age of consent” with “age of consent” being a flexible term which incorporates the ages of both parties. That is - a 16 year old may be considered to have the legal capacity to consent to sex with another 16 year old, but not with a 40 year old.</p>
<p>So, I’m going to continue to use the term pedophile to refer to a 40 or 50 year old guy who has a sexual interest in anyone under the age of 18. (And I’m not really comfortable with 18, for that matter.) And if a kid he was targeting turned 18 during a period of time when Foley was targeting him, that doesn’t mean Foley’s not a pedophile in my opinion. </p>
<p>Finally: the lack of a known smoking gun that Foley actually had some sort of physical sexual contact with any of the pages or ex-pages doesn’t constitute proof that he never did. The book is open on that question, and my guess, based on the totality of circumstances here, is that the answer is yes.</p>
<p>We know that when Speaker Hastert was first briefed on Foley’s emails, he delegated the matter to Congressman Shimkus and the Clerk of the House. At the time, I believe the House was considering the NSA eavesdropping legislation, the budget, and numerous other vital pieces of legislation. I think it was appropriate for Hastert to delegate a matter such as this to others, especially since he delegated it to senior Congressional personnel and the facts known at that time were that (at most) Foley had sent questionable emails. The principal/student analogy raised by some is appealing but it’s not appropriate. Hastert is not a principal whose job is to focus on the pages. The fact that he got involved enough to delegate the matter to senior personnel is admirable and evidences a degree of concern that speaks well of him. Frankly, it’s unreasonable and unfair to condemn him because he didn’t do a better job of personally policing members of Congress, especially given the character and background of many of our elected representatives.</p>
<p>Having said that, I think Hastert should consider resigning. He’s inextricably linked to what has become Foleygate and for him to continue as Speaker is distracting, not only to his Party but also to the business of Congress. However, I do not expect him to resign. I think he will appoint someone to undertake an investigation of this matter and to make recommendations for the future of the page program.</p>
<p>From thousands of miles away, this looks to me like a political witch hunt against gay Republicans that used Foley, the pages, and other gays in DC to engineer an October surprise. Foley caused this and his actions were reprehensible, but there were a few people who were more interested in manipulating this matter for political gain than in helping children. Foley hurt his Party during a time of war, his friends, family and supporters, himself, and most of all the pages. In my view, once the game started, leaders of both the Democratic and Republican parties had no choice but to play the hands they were dealt.</p>
<p>“The techinical meaning of “pedophilia” is sexual attraction towards pre-adolescents: fine. But an accepted and common alternate meaning is “Sexual attraction towards children below the age of consent” with “age of consent” being a flexible term which incorporates the ages of both parties. That is - a 16 year old may be considered to have the legal capacity to consent to sex with another 16 year old, but not with a 40 year old.”</p>
<p>Bull hockey. Word have definitions for a reason and there should be a word for person who twists those definitions to make a political case dirtier.</p>
<p>A 16 year old is an adolescent. That changes everything, particulary in a jurisdiction where 16 is the age of consent. You’re attempt to decide that matter for the District not withstanding, 16 is the age of consent there and the IMs in particular leave no doubt that there was consent.</p>
<p>As for your Autumn/Spring relationship prejudice, that’s interesing if not relevant to this fading scandal. So, tell us, how do you feel about Demi and Ashton. ;)</p>
<p>The Abscam, sorry, Abramoff scandal would have more traction if anyone really thought that it was unique to Republicans. A good chunk of the Abramoff money went to Democrats like Harry Reid, who acted in favor of the Tribes Abramoff represented. Not that you could prove quid pro quo, but then, where do you see proof of that with any other member of Congress.</p>
<p>It would also help dispell the belief that corruption is an equal opportunity offense if Democrats could keep their own corruptions scandals out of the press while they’re trying to make the case. May be I should say they should keep their scandals on ice. At least in the freezer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, going back a few pages, what do YOU call a 40 or 50 year old guy who has a sexual interest in young men who are a day older than the age of 18? You already know what I can call them … and the term does not require a trip to the library! </p>
<p>Especially since you are not really comfortable with 18, for that matter!</p>
<p>What always amuses me about the Republicans on here is the “but not my kid”-ness. </p>
<p>They’ll argue passionately about the rightness of the Iraq war–“but not my kid”–all of the Republican posters on here have children safely in college.</p>
<p>And Strick–I think you would be a “but not my kid” if you had a l6-year-old son that a horny 54-year-old was trying to “date.”</p>
<p>farawayplaces, where have you gotten the idea that I was OK with what Foley did? Did you miss the posts that compared this to harrassment by college professors? Of course, the real issue is that I don’t have any say over what the age of consent is in the District. I’m not sure how I’d react if a “horny” 54 year old was hitting on my son who is of age, but I can be fairly sure I’d treat my son like he is of age and making his own choices.</p>
<p>As for the rightness of the Iraq War, “but not my kid”, I believe the majority of US military forces are from red states. Certainly the states with the highest rates of volunteers are red. That may not answer you, but it’s true.</p>
<p>And my nephew is on his second tour in Iraq with the Armored Cav, thank you very much. He made his own choice when he became of age, just like my kids do.</p>
<p>Another potential bombshell???</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.drudgereport.com/page.htm[/url]”>http://www.drudgereport.com/page.htm</a></p>
<p>So now the claim is that the young boy in question was just a frat boy pulling a stunt on an old queen, ■■■■■■■■ the internet for fake cyber-sex (how is that different from 'real cyber-sex)? “I’m not really gay, I just play a queer on the internet” Thats really Family Values for you.
But why is this a bombshell? Was Hastert in on the prank?</p>
<p>read it…barrons</p>
<p>CLAIM: FILTHY FOLEY ONLINE MESSAGES WERE PAGE PRANK GONE AWRY
<strong>World Exclusive</strong>
<strong>Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT</strong> </p>
<p>According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal. </p>
<p>According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded an unwitting Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats. </p>
<p>The primary source, an ally of Edmund, adamantly proclaims that the former page is not a homosexual. The prank scenario was confirmed by a second associate of Edmund. Both are fearful that their political careers will be affected if they are publicly brought into the matter. </p>
<p>The prank scenario only applies to the Edmund IM sessions and does not necessarily apply to any other exchanges between the former congressman and others. </p>
<p>The news come on the heels that Edmund has hired former Timothy McVeigh attorney, Stephen Jones. </p>
<p>Developing… </p>
<p>UNWITTING FOLEY!!! a congressman…K, I buy it…he is so stupid that he was fooled by highschool and college kids into writing about sex online…and not jsut once, but many times, and he willingly wrote some pretty nasty stuff to go onlong with the pransters? WHY in the world would Foley do that…on lets fool around and pretend you are gay and write sexaul stuff to each other, hey, fooled me!!</p>
<p>alrighty then</p>
<p>(its almost as plausible as those guys that show up at 15 year olds houses on the TV program)</p>
<p>or maybe Wynona Ryder…</p>
<p>Drudge report? And some of you make fun of John Stewart’s show? :)</p>
<p>I read it–what is your point? That some kids can’t fool a goofy old queen?</p>
<p>Barrons:
what is your point?</p>
<p>gla, it just supports the argument that this is coordinated October Surprise, not an innocently timed release that hit a blog and just happened to hit right now. A case of dirty tricks politics of the most cynical order.</p>
<p>When you add that to how this was misrepresented as case of pedophilia, the fact the young man was of the age of consent, the implicit gay bashing in it, it could lead to a severe backlash against the Democrats if handled properly. The woman running for Congress in Minnesota who got the ad accusing Foley of child molestation up in record time should be particularly worried.</p>
<p>This clearly shows who not only doesn’t have family values but who’s willing to do anything to get back in power, even thrashing some of their own supposedly held highest principles.</p>
<p>Hasert’s troubles will blow away in the backwash.</p>
<p>It is dangerous to put too much stock into the Drudge Report, I admit. Doesn’t change how the public will react either way, really.</p>