-
Website
http://sayanythingblog.com/ -
Original page
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/should_republican_leadership_be_fired_over_foley_mess -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
That being said, if what he did was in fact just distasteful and sleazy but not illegal, then it falls under the heading of "his business".
Let's see what plays out.
PageS, not page.
Marc Foley has been in congress six terms,
expect a detailed history of his sex life
now that he has been exposed.
Ann Coulter has a house in his district,
maybe she will run.
Maybe we should remind them of Gary Studds.
The reality is that this is a hit job by the Dems and the MSM to try to grab power through the courts, so they want to spread the smear as widely as possible. No mystery.
That is the reality.
I have a problem with elected officials and teenage pages, r108.
Do you?
He has already lost his job, which is more than what happened to Clinton for a similar crime. He didn't lie about what he did on national TV, either, but he will undoubtedly be punished to a far greater degree than Clinton. Do you consider this justice?
Cliiiiiinton did not commit a similar crime.
Cliiiiiiiiiiiiiintttoonn lied under oath. Was impeached and disbarred. The gops spent over 100 million of our tax dollars to catch him lying about sex. Thanks gop, well done. Bravo.
Stop trying to re write history, r108.
I haven't watch TEEVEE in days so I don't know whether or not this newest gop cut and runner has denied or acknowledge or even made any statement on TEEVEE about what he is alleged to have done.
This guy appears to have committed numerous sex crimes with teenagers. His sudden cut and run makes him look even more guilty. The stories of gop leadership knowing about the e-mails and doing nothing for months implicates them as well.
Do you think sex crimes should be prosecuted?
By Jove, I do believe the gop is coming unhinged.
[quote][/quote]Cliiiiiinton did not commit a similar crime.
[b]Technically, you're right; his crime was much more serious. He, according to feminist rules, committed sexual harrassment(powerful man, powerless younger woman, and he did more than solicit her; he had actual sex with her(despite his lies).[/b]
Cliiiiiiiiiiiiiintttoonn lied under oath. Was impeached and disbarred.
[b]He didn't lose his job, and his disbarment was delayed until he left office. He also suborned perjury by telling Monica to lie, as well. Even though he never paid for it, he also accepted foreign money for his campaigns, also a crime. The bagman served time for it, but not the recipient.[/b]
The gops spent over 100 million of our tax dollars to catch him lying about sex.
[b]And a host of other crimes, which resulted in 17 convictions, so you lie by omission.[/b]
Thanks gop, well done. Bravo.[b]We deserve thanks for going after the scumbag.[/b]
Stop trying to re write history, r108.
[b]Bill and Hillary are already on that job.[/b]
I haven't watch TEEVEE in days so I don't know whether or not this newest gop cut and runner has denied or acknowledge or even made any statement on TEEVEE about what he is alleged to have done.
This guy appears to have committed numerous sex crimes with teenagers. His sudden cut and run makes him look even more guilty. The stories of gop leadership knowing about the e-mails and doing nothing for months implicates them as well.
[b]Only in your partisan mind. More "preliminary reports".[/b]
Do you think sex crimes should be prosecuted?
[b]Yes, without exception for being a
smarmy Dem President.[/b]
By Jove, I do believe the gop is coming unhinged.[/quote]
[b]It's the Dems who are acting like a cornered animal these days.[/b]
Oh Mike, come now. Given the results of the last few elections the people who want to keep Republicans in power are hardly on the political fringe.
[quote]Partisanship aside, a periodic recycling of any government is healthy.[/quote]
I doubt you'd be saying that if we were talking about Bill Clinton/Democrats in power, but I do generally agree with it.
I've complained here often about Republicans, and would be willing to vote against them in the coming election. Problem is that, in terms of taxation, government growth and national security, the Democrats would be even worse than the Republicans are.
So yeah, they're a bit arrogant. But let's not read more into the actions of one Representative than is necessary.
In my opinion, criticism of the GOP as a whole over this Foley matter hardly seems warranted. You are, as always, welcome to disagree.
And Foley being a gay pedophile is no better or worse than being a hetro pedophile.
The way House Republican leadership handled Foley's pedophila over the past few years is worthy of public discussion. And Republican members of Congress should be leading the debate, not ducking it. The way the House Leadership dealt with Foley's behavior over the years is eerily identical to the way Roman Catholic bishops and church hierarchy dealt with the problem of pedophilic priests in their midst.
Instead of rushing to the defense of the vulnerable and the sanctity of the Institution, their first consideration appears to be to protect their caucus, their hold on power.
Should the House Republican Leadership who turned a blind eye to the situation be fired, rebuked or censored? That is wholly a decision of the Republican caucus, the Republican memebers of the House, and no one else. I happen to think the Republican Party would emerge stronger and more credible if they took a clear, strong and decisive step. It is a rare opportunity to show America where they truly stand.
Rob...the Democrats aren't pure either. I rag on the Republicans here because they are in power and thus are responsible for American policy. I'm also disheartened by their alliance with fundamentalist Christian goups although it appears to me that those ties are loosening. I don't care much for the sanctimonious invocation of "moral superiority" which is common to Republicans and their supporters...Democrats do it too which just goes to show that hypcricy is not a partisan trait.
I'm old enough now to recognise that electoral politics is usually a game played under very cynical conditions. This is not to say that there aren't good people trying to make a difference in politics, people from a variety of backgrounds and offering a variety of prescriptions, but politics, in the end, are politics. Any party in power for too long becomes complacent and self-gratifying and needs to be turfed.
The difference between you and us is that we call out our own.
The Republican Party is not the only influence on American foreign policy. Because of their stranglehold on the MSM, the Dems have more influence on foreign policy than they should. All of this "torture" crap has nothing to do with actual US policy, but the MSM lies about it, just like everything else. As far as "alliance with Fundamendalist Christian Groups" is concerned, it's called freedom of religion, and it is part of our Constitution. You have an overheated fantasy about this, which is common to residents of less-free countries.
[quote]The difference between you and us is that we call out our own.[/quote]
That's a hot one.
r108...no need to apologise. I have no doubt that the Canadian mainstream is farther left than yours but I still think you're dreaming if you think your ideas are mainstream, even in America. Your need to invest in media conspicacy theories is proof enough that your ideas just don't command broad based support. As for fundamentalist groups trying to impose their beliefs on others or freedom of religion as you call it...thanks for the chuckle.
Rob...I'm not considered anti-American enough in other spots I frequent so there you go. I'm sure that if I agreed with folks here more that I probably would be spending more time arguing with leftists somewhere else.
Mike, have you seen polls about the public's trust in the media? Personally, I think your rather unflinching trust of the media's objectivity is what's really in the fringe.
I'm not really sure what that's supposed to mean, but all I'm saying is that I have a core set of basic principles...and I try to support/vote for the people who best represent those principles. That tends to be Republicans most of the time. If that makes me partisan, I don't care even a little bit. I feel no need to posture in order to make myself look more nuanced, middle-of-the-road or moderate.
There's no "theory" involved; I see it every day, and have been aware of leftie media bias for almost forty years and counting. BTW, "conspiracy" is your term, I don't use it, because I don't think it's true. You made that one up all by yourself. It is a partisan political bias, pure and simple. The MSM wants the Dems to win, because almost all of them [i]are[/i] Dems. It's not rocket science.
Now, as far as your theories about fundamentalist Christian conspiracies...that is your own little dream.
It's true though.
I have no doubt that the Canadian mainstream is farther left than yours but I still think you're dreaming if you think your ideas are mainstream, even in America.
Well Mike, just goes to show how far removed you are from American society. robert108's ideas are right there smack dab in the middle of mainstream America.
Your need to invest in media conspicacy theories is proof enough that your ideas just don't command broad based support.
Oh...so the fact that the majority of reporters self identify as liberals *cough*, excuse me..the new buzzword to today is "moderates", is just one of those "media conspicacy theories". I guess the fact that the majority of media reports around election time always favor Dems in terms of negative/positive slant is just another one of those "media conspicacy theories".
Gee,..I don't know Mike,..I'm going to go with Occam's Razor and reason that liberal reporters would naturally spin and bias their reporting towards the liberal point of view. You can continue to casually dismiss such ideas and ignore the hundreds of postings that are done on this site in support of such claims. You can continue to not engage the argument on any kind of merit, and instead just call it a "conspicacy". Who knows? You just might convince another person with that sort of hand-waving dismissal.
First, the age of consent for minors only applies when the age disparity is less than four years. A 19-year-old is not breaking the law in having sex with a 16-year-old; a 40-year-old is.
Second, soliciting minors for sex is a crime even if you're unsuccessful.
Third, the boys in question were House employees of junior stature. This surely violates not only federal employment law but House ethics rules.
Second point if irrelevant if you're wrong on the first point.
Third point I agree with you on. This absolutely has to be a violation of House ethics rules. The question is if the House leadership knew the extent of Foley's actions prior to this all be made public. I don't think they did, as I've indicated in [email=http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/democrats_want_to_turn_foley_into_a_campaign_issue/]this post[/email].
I can't stick around this afternoon but I wanted you to know that I appreciated your response...you've got facts, some humour, you're in control and you twist the knife just enough to draw a response without going over the top. I look forward to butting heads another time.
If they were to be honest about their bias, it would cut into their apparent authoritativeness. As I view it, the claim for fair and unbiased reporting is nothing more than a marketing gimmick, and something they actively know to be a falsehood.
That depends on the state you live in. In my state, the age differential is two years. Here is a partial description of the law by state that I found.
[url=http://teenadvice.about.com/library/weekly/qanda/blageofconsentchart.htm]Age of Consent by states[/url]
age of consent in Florida: 18
age of consent in Lousiana: 17[/quote]
Federal Laws:
[quote]Federal Laws
{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2422(b)} forbids the use of the United States Postal Service or [b]other interstate or foreign means of communication[/b], such as telephone calls or use of the [b]internet[/b], to [b]persuade or entice a minor (defined as under 18 throughout chapter[/b]) [b]to be involved [/b]in a criminal sexual act. The act has to be illegal under state or federal law to be charged with a crime under 2422(b), and can even be applied to situations where both parties are within the same state, but [b]uses an instant messenger program whose servers are in another state.[/b][3]
{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(a)} forbids transporting a minor (defined as under 18) in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent of engaging in criminal sexual acts in which a person can be charged. This subsection is ambigious on its face, and only seems to apply if you transport a minor across state or international lines to a place where the conduct is already illegal to begin with. United States Department of Justice seems to agree with this interpretation.
{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(b)} forbids traveling in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in "illicit sexual conduct" with a minor. 2423(f) refers to Chapter 109A as its bright line for defining "illicit sexual conduct", as for as non-commercial sexual activity is concerned. For the purposes of age of consent, the only provision applicable is {Chapter 109A, 18 U.S.C. 2243(a)}. 2243(a) refers to situations where such younger person is under the age of 16 years, has attained 12 years of age, and the older person is more than 4 years older than the 12-15 year old (persons under 12 are handled under 18 U.S.C. 2241(c) under aggravated sexual abuse). So, the age is 12 years if you're within 4 years of the 12-15 year old's age, 16 under all other circumstances. This most likely reflects Congressional intent to not unduly interfere with a state's age of consent law, which would have been the case if the age was set to 18 under all circumstances. This law is also extraterritorial in nature to US Citizens and Residents who travel outside of the United States.
[/quote]
Law enforcement in Florida says they already looking into it.
The Republican leadership seems to want the Feds to look into it too.
[quote]MikeA: You fail to respond to my point that I never alleged a "conspiracy" in the MSM; that was your idea, not mine.[/quote]
I take note that you do not believe the activity you describe is a conspiracy nor do you describe it as such.
[quote]They have a commonality of purpose, which is to support their buddies on the left and to defeat the opposition by any means whatsoever.[/quote]
I take it that you don't call the relationship a conspiracy because the actions taken are not illegal nor are they surreptitious. Is this correct?
[quote]When gas prices were going up, according to the MSM, it was a conspiracty by "Bush" to enrich his oil buddies; when gas prices are going down, again according to the MSM, it's a conspiracy by "Bush" to manipulate public opinion.[/quote]
I don't recall seeing an outbreak of such articles...I actually don't recall seeing any such articles in the mainstream media although I certainly take your word that such exist. I still think you're mistaken in identifying a common interest between Bush's political opponents and the media and that a partisan motivation exists on the media's part but our opinions clearly differ.
Nope, I'm getting more pragmatic as I grow older...that's why you don't see me jumping at the easy solution for the complex problem...that's what an idealist does.
That is one of the things an idealist does; the main characteristic of an idealist is to ignore facts in favor of an ideal vision of reality, like this:
[quote]I don't recall seeing an outbreak of such articles...I actually don't recall seeing any such articles in the mainstream media [/quote]
This had to do with the fearmongering from the MSM on gas prices, specifically the claim that "Bush" was manipulating them on both the upside and on the downside. While it's true that there was much more of it on the upside(weeks, actually; mostly due to linking it to Katrina coverage), the conspiracy talk on the downside was featured prominently until the next smear allegation appeared. The MSM is picking up the pace of phony smear stories against the President, and maybe that is why. Leftie MSM bias is as plain as the nose on your face, and you don't see it. Now [i]that's[/i] idealism!
The appearance of any conspiracy story in what purports to be a "news" broadcast should be distasteful to us all, I would think. Especially one about gas prices, with no supporting evidence. Just saying something like that on the air is evidence of heavy bias, IMO. The fact that time had to be taken to refute such nonsense is not evidence of lack of bias; only of a phony "news" story in the first place.
[quote]the main characteristic of an idealist is to ignore facts in favor of an ideal vision of reality, like this:
I don't recall seeing an outbreak of such articles...I actually don't recall seeing any such articles in the mainstream media [/quote]
and these were your words...now stop being silly.
Justify this: [quote]...its not surprising that you would obsess over the former group.[/quote]
What is your definition of "obsess", and how do you believe I fit into it? I focus on what is being done to propagandize our news, and you call me obsessed. Isn't that just a bit "silly", or something more ominous?
You demonize me in an attempt to win your argument. Not cricket, really.
...its not surprising that you would obsess over the former group.[/quote]
[url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=obsess]obsess[/url]
Media bias is a common theme in your comments...you use media bias to explain away developments or events which do not fit your view of the world. I'm not demonising you but you logical process is clearly hindered when discussing the topic.
This is clearly demonization to invalidate views as "explaining away", rather than simply "explaining" what is clearly there. Surely you can do better than that.
Are you the only one who can simply describe what he sees as happening, and is anyone who disagrees with you "explaining away developments or events which do not fit their view of the world"? Isn't that the epitome of bias? You attack me instead of demonstrating that media bias doesn't exist, which would be the only reasonable argument. I say it does exist; you attack me. This isn't really debate, is it?
Of course you can describe what you see just as I can agree with or dispute what you see. If you want me to start linking articles which do not, in my opinion, demonstrate bias then i will but it is such a waste of time. Finally, if you consider what I have said an attack then I'm going to start holding you to your own standard...you won't be able to describe anything I say as lefty dribble but will have to restrict yourself to responding [b]only[/b] and [b]specifically[/b] to what is said. Is that what you want? Let me know.
I also want to say that the media bias that I see is not addressable with simply giving the other point of view occasionally. The only cure for it is to stop it entirely and report the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Another personal attack, but I would like to answer it. Until I came to this blog, I never experienced so much "interpretation", rather than simply reading what is written. This is almost exclusively from the lefties, in my experience. It almost always takes the form of them saying "you mean that...", and "you are implying that...". They never ask, they assume, and they are always wrong. I'm pretty straightforward, usually, and I say what I mean and mean what I say. Oftimes, there is an insertion of words I didn't say, like "conspiracy", and the improper use of modifiers. I don't know why this is, but I'm pretty intolerant of it, where others just let it go by. To me, it pollutes the dialogue, so I will continue to call people when the misinterpret, misstate, or misquote me. Not to mention making things up I never said.
Poor r108 can't see that the quotes he offered here are not personal attacks but actually questions asking for clarification and not asserted assumptions.
Step away from the keyboard.
Take a deep breath.
Your symptoms are compounding at an alarming rate.
r108, seek help.
[quote]To me, it pollutes the dialogue, so I will continue to call people when the misinterpret, misstate, or misquote me. Not to mention making things up I never said.[/quote]
Please stop attacking me.
Please stop attacking me for attacking you. (ha ha)
Pedophiles want to have sex with children. Pre-pubscents, that is.
While a 16-year-old is a legal minor, they are not a child for purposes of pedophilia, which is why high schoolers who have sex with other high schoolers are neither "sick" nor "pedophiles", and why the laws protecting people in that age-range from sexual predation by older people are "statutory rape" laws, not "pedophilia" laws.
Let's not lessen the vile wrong of people having sex (or wanting to) with 12-year-olds by acting like that's the same thing as having sex (or wanting to) with 16 or 17-year-olds.
They're not the same thing, in terms either of biology, psychology, "common sense" (much as I hate to use the term), and the law.
(Also note as previously posted by an anonymous person that 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) criminalizes enticing someone under 18 into a criminal sexual act. Enticing a 16 year old into an act legal in both states involved, and under federal law, over an IM system would thus not be illegal. Plus, well, no sexual acts occurred, did they?
Foley's actions, that we know of, are "icky", and possibly a mis-use of a position of authority - but they're not pedophilia or child-abuse or (even staturory) rape.)
If he was a Dem he'd still be around with the rest of the party circling the wagons.