<p>yeah, what is the fooling…that he was talking to high schoolers in sexual explicit ways</p>
<p>guess the fooling was, if I get this right, is that they were pretending to be interested in Foley, when they weren’t, but how does that in any way change Foley’s words?</p>
<p>Whether Foley was fooled or not is irrelevant, because he believed it was true</p>
<p>My lord, some of you are thick. The point is emptiness of the allegations that the House leadership knew, or should have known, about this…prank?</p>
<p>
Strick, it’s not my “prejudice”, it’s the law in many if not most states. In California, sexual acts with a minor (defined here as under 18) is least harshly punished if the age difference between the participants is less than 3 years; the penalties increase with the age differential, including significant benchmarks where the adult is over 21 and the minor under 16; and when the minor is under 14 and the adult ten or more years older, etc. It’s not my personal prejudice, it’s both common sense - and the law. Other states have similar statutory schemes.</p>
<p>It seems like it wasn’t Democrats hiding IM’s from the appropriate authorities, but ‘conservative’ Republicans.
I am even more convinced we need to investigate the leadership.</p>
<p>and somehow republicans doing this 3 years ago, that is somehow to explain away Foleys own words?</p>
<p>come on, you can do better than that!!</p>
<p>
I am thick. I thought that when police entice some old queen to commit cyber-sex predation, they arrest that man. Is his defense that the police were not really 16, so I committed no crime?
If Hastert wasn’t in on the ‘prank’ don’t you think he had a responsibility to check on it?</p>
<p>
Nice that right-wingers have outed this young man.</p>
<p>Gee, did some of us miss the part where the messages fell into the hands of Democratic operatives?</p>
<p>BTW, the entrapment thing you describe gla, wouldn’t really matter if the policeperson were pretending to be 16 in the District of Columbia. You get that, don’t you?</p>
<p>“Strick, it’s not my ‘prejudice’, it’s the law in many if not most states.”</p>
<p>Yes, but it’s not the law in the District of Columbia. Laws in most states are irrelevant. It’s against the state constitution to spit on the side walk here. How does that affect you again? Once we’re past the legal issue, all that’s left are your feelings about the idea, which is to say your prejudices against people of different ages fulfilling their love. Or sending tacky IM’s as in this case.</p>
<p>Do you people EVER stop protecting the mendicants? Ever???</p>
<p>And a couple of guys, who now say they are straight and were just messing around with Foley, is that to protect whom?</p>
<p>How do we know they were just a prank, because they say so?</p>
<p>Sure…so our choices are:</p>
<p>Believe to conservative republican pranksters who decided it would be fun to mess around with a congressman who was more than game to have these chats</p>
<p>That even though the house leadership knew of the emails, but never read them, knew it was nothing</p>
<p>That a congressman was taken in by two males, and even though, on Foley’s side, even though he wrote those things to minors, etc., that on one side of the equation, the boys were fulling around with Foley, that is supposed to exonerate Foley from bad behavior</p>
<p>Anyone watch those shows where the guys show up at some house to meet the 15 year old they were chatting with online for sex…so they didn’t break the law, exactlly, but does that make their behavior forgivable?</p>
<p>and as Foley spent much of his political career protecting children from online predators, etc., he would think it was fun to go along with the prack…</p>
<p>not sure which one is the least plausible</p>
<p>
We just never stop seeing through the obvious garbage.</p>
<p>Hey Driver. This may or may not be garbage, but it sure is deflecting attention from all the bigger messes your boys have made. Slick!</p>
<p>THere would be nothing to fall into anybody’s hands if Foley didnt do what he did!!!</p>
<p>Think about that, dense and thick ones, if Foley did nothing, if Foley said, wow this conversation is getting a bit "off’, if Foley didn’t ask for pages pictures invite them for icecream, etc, if Foley behaved himself, there would be nothing anywhere, but as Foley DID do ALL that stuff…you blame operatives because Foley did all that stuff…</p>
<p>okay, that is rich</p>
<p>What obvious garbage please"</p>
<p>Here is a question:</p>
<p>Did Foley participate in emails and IM’s? And at least for part of the time, was that ex-page of the IMs under 18? And did Foley’s attentions make pages nervous and creeped out? And did Hastert, et all, know about the emails, and basically do nothing?</p>
<p>And are you looking for a legal escape route for Foley, or do you think he should be held to at least the minimum moral standards when it comes to dealing with minors?</p>
<p>citygirlsmom, if it turns out that Foley was hitting on 15 year olds, we’ll go back to the statutory rape scenario. Until then, Foley’s not the only creep in the story. The “operatives favorable to the Democrats” who sat on the story and then re-wrote it as a case of pedophilia in a blatant dirty trick deserve to have their heads handed too them, too. As does anyone to tried to profit from the way this was handled.</p>
<p>Members of religious orders who rely on alms do occasionally deserve defending, Allmusic. Foley doesn’t fit the bill, but he’s out of it. Resigned in disgrace and facing a criminal investigation (though a mercifully short one if the story holds), he’ll get his. Beyond that, which is more important, getting to the truth of what happened or abusing Republicans? </p>
<p>Some of you don’t need to answer. ;)</p>
<p>Strick, I don’t know what the law is in DC (and I suspect you don’t either.) But here’s what Wikipedia says about the terms in question:
</p>
<pre><code>
Which makes me feel better about not recognizing “ephebophilia” - if it doesn’t have “broad academic acceptance” I guess it’s probably not a household word in general, either.
</code></pre>
<p>P.S. And whatever it was that happened in San Diego as referenced in one of the IM’s would come within the California definition of unlawful sex with a minor - and also qualify under federal law, I believe.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, down on the ranch:</p>
<p>Bush signings called effort to expand power
Report sees broad strategy
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | October 5, 2006</p>
<p>WASHINGTON – President Bush’s frequent use of signing statements to assert that he has the power to disobey newly enacted laws is <code>an integral part" of his</code>comprehensive strategy to strengthen and expand executive power" at the expense of the legislative branch, according to a report by the non partisan Congressional Research Service.</p>
<p>In a 27-page report written for lawmakers, the research service said the Bush administration is using signing statements as a means to slowly condition Congress into accepting the White House’s broad conception of presidential power, which includes a presidential right to ignore laws he believes are unconstitutional.</p>
<p>The ``broad and persistent nature of the claims of executive authority forwarded by President Bush appear designed to inure Congress, as well as others, to the belief that the president in fact possesses expansive and exclusive powers upon which the other branches may not intrude," the report said.
Under most interpretations of the Constitution, the report said, some of the legal assertions in Bush's signing statements are dubious. For example, it said, the administration has suggested repeatedly that the president has exclusive authority over foreign affairs and has an absolute right to withhold information from Congress. Such assertions are ``generally unsupported by established legal principles," the report said. Despite such criticism, the administration has continued to issue signing statements for new laws. Last week, for example, Bush signed the 2007 military budget bill, but then issued a statement challenging 16 of its provisions.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/10/05/bush_signings_called_effort_to_expand_power/[/url]”>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/10/05/bush_signings_called_effort_to_expand_power/</a></p>
<p>So, are you saying Foley is getting swiftboated?</p>
<p>and thank you allmusic, I forget about all the other rechid, depressing, scary news out there, and I should be paying more attention</p>
<p>and LOVE the term “enemy political operative”…wow!!! iguess the republicans see elections as wars</p>
<p>cgm:
How about this for scary news:</p>
<p>CBS: Death Squads In Iraqi Hospitals
Intelligence Seen By CBS News Says Hospitals Are Command Centers For Shiite Militia</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/04/eveningnews/main2064668.shtml[/url]”>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/04/eveningnews/main2064668.shtml</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Guess we’ll have to postpone that victory party (again).</p>