Republican Congressman Sends Sex Messages to Underage Boys

Really? Somehow I doubt that Henry Hyde, Roy Blunt, Conrad Burns, Ted Stevens, and a host of other scandal-plagued republicans over the years are going to fall on their swords en masse over this.

Hey, speaking of gay governor affairs, is Texas having an election this year?

And while we're going gay, is GWB going to resign for having had a gay prostitute with a fake name ask him fawning questions at press conferences?

 

How very original. Seeing as I've never claimed to be in the Perry camp nor am I backing up Foley in this area I have absolutely no idea why you'd bring up the Perry rumor.

 

Because of McGreevey, do some research.

Basso is arguing for the precedent that gay scandal plagued republicans resign with dignity while the evil democratic filth gets a free pass.

Of course this is true, if you don't take into account reality.

 

You said:

Sounds to me like you're attempting to equate what he said with what the more hardcore Republicans are saying. Your last sentence is a statement which for some reason has a question mark at the end.

That's just the same as someone pointing out the simliarities in DNC talking points and an OBL video and saying "Is Howard Dean saying that he rejoices on the destruction of the twin towers?" It's absurd. Sure some do it but it doesn't make it right.

I also don't recall giddy calling anyone beasts. If he did, I apologize. You're directing your anger at what a third party said at someone who hasn't said it because they share a simliar belief structure.

 

You responded to my post and not to giddy's. You brought up Perry out of thin air when all I was talking about was Hastert resigning.

 

No, I didn't bring it up out of thin air, I brought it up as a contrast to McGreevey, which was in the post of mine that you responded to.

If you don't want to discuss the obvious falsehood that basso presents as fact, then you shouldn't have responded, I guess.

 

I'd like some clarification about how people doing something which is legal are victimis?

I don't blame the "kids" at all. It is all creepy. I am just poking into the sensationalism here, i.e. look at the title of the thread.

The only thing illegal that seems to have gone on is A) supplying alcohol, B) sending inappropriate messages and C) "consorting" with pages -- I'm not sure what the illegality is there.

This is all very disgusting, but it's not like this guy is seducing 14 YOs or he's killing people. It's a sad pathetic story which has been sensationalized by political parrying.

 

OK. I'll be sure to request permission to post in the future.

 

So, giddyup, what you're saying is that, the only thing that's illegal are the crimes that were committed, therefore, what the hell is so illegal about it?

You need to read the full transcript of the messages, you obviously haven't.

 

You can post all you want, but if you get huffy puffy because you missed/skipped over a key point, then I'll huff and puff and blow your house down.

 

The kids were minors. That is where the illegality comes into play. Some of the kids were of the age of consent, others WERE NOT.

Do you think it is legal to use the internet to have cybersex with minors, invite them to the house of a 50 + year old to drink and engage in sexual activity?

The title of the thread is accurate. That is precisely what Congressman Foley did. He sent sex messages to boys. But this goes beyond that. GOP leadership knew of this tendency towards these things, and tried to hide it and cover it up.

Finally, I will ask again, if, like you say, it is all still wrong, and no less disgusting then why are you trying to lessen the impact of it by implying their wasn't anything thing "that" illegal about it, and that they weren't really innocent kids?

 

No, what I'm saying is that people are gleefully convicting him of both things that are criminal and things that are not.

I'm not minimizing any illegality. I just don't like seeing him convicted of things that are not illegal for political gain. Hey, if there weren't a political angle here I probably wouldn't care who said what about the creep.

 

<----Sam Fisher, internet badass

 

Drudge called the victims beasts. I asked if giddy was going to go in that same direction. He later responded in a way that seemed to indicate he was.

 

If 17 years of age is "minor" our high schools NATIONWIDE are full of statutory rapists....

How many pages did Foley: A) have sex with who were underage B) send illicit electronic messages who were undeage, and C) provide alcohol for who were underage?

I think in most cases, those ages of consent for sex, porno and alcohol are very likely different. Most here seem to want to just lump them in all together.

I quibble not to help his legal case but to slow down the politicking....

 

Why did you raise the age of at least one page. One page was 16 and not 17. Internet regulations for the kind of stuff Foley was doing is 18. Drinking age is 21.

Statutory rape often also carries with it an age discrepency for younger people, so your high school example is off base.

 

I wasn't talking about any page at all. I was talking about the generally recognized ages for consent for those various activities. It probably varies by state, too.

My high school example is, of course, totally off base because it was based on your expressed notion that anyone having sex who is not yet 18 is not of age.
That was my point. Lot's of kids who are 17, 16 and even younger are having sex. Only those under 16 are underage. The others are of the age of consent and may have a partner who is likewise 17 or 20 or 28 or 40... shall I stop? Is there a ceiling on the age of legality? No, it would seem to be governed by other factors.

 

Uh.. the rules of consent apply to adults and not other minors. A minor can have sex with someone of the same age, but Mark Foley isn't allowed to be messing around with 16 year olds.