Republican Congressman Sends Sex Messages to Underage Boys

Well, feel better because we don't actually agree at all. I think Foley is a pervert and has no business championing the protections of children. Studds was Foley at an earlier time who, through the fog of Democratic allegiance, is no criminal but rather a hero of some sort. He plied a 17YO intern with alcohol and took him to bed.

They are both scum but how criminal are they is my question....

 

in other words, if you're a parent with a teen child, you'd rather have him/her be victimized by someone like foley rather than studds

 

Sometimes the insight you have into my soul just amazes me....

Where did you get that conclusion? I said they were both creeps-- only now one is "worse" because of a recent change in the law. The law doesn't change his soul or his mental creepiness; it only changes if and how we are able to punish him.

 

Yes because if it was the latter, then time travel would have been invented.

The fact that these idiots are trying to bring up something that happened a quarter century ago is very telling.

 

They are still different. One was with someone who was consenting, and at times Foley's advances were unwanted by the paiges.

But neither of them were appropriate. Also the biggest difference is that one was 20 years ago and isn't really relevant, and the other happened recently and was covered up by Republican leadership.

 

So is justifying be willing to gloss over it or, even better, to totally forget it. Imagine if Studds had had IM... he'd have died in jail!

 

I guess what you are wanting to do is to punish Foley for what you perceive to be a Republican coverup. Is that right?

If someone replies to an IM or an email, isn't that tacit consent? How many times did they say "Stop IMing me..." or whatever?

 

in your eyes, are they equally morally wrong?

 

Imagine if transvestite J.Edgar Hoover sodomized you, or just gloss over it.

 

No I want to punish the GOP leadership for their cover-up, and punish Foley for any crimes he may have committed.

I think it was that they told him NO and Gross or something to that effect with either 13 or 18 exclamation points or after it. I can't really remember the details I heard. But it left no doubt that the conversation was not welcome

 

So I can expect no comparisons to Vietnam from either of you in the future? FDR, either. No Nixon posts and definitely no WWII posts about internment camps.

Probably no slavery posts, either or any posts talking about the Civil Rights struggle. We can also forget that Constitution thing because it was written over two centuries ago.

 

Which one actually seduced a 17YO while plying him with liquor?

 

Please don't involve me in your sexual fantasies!!

Now you're talking about Studds not Foley.

 

Agreed. Why is Foley, though, so much more of a despot than Studds in your mind?

Close the window. That sends a message.

 

Foley isn't more of a despot than Studds. Foley did prey on underage boys, and Studds had a consentual affair with someone of age.

So does saying exactly what the paige said. That message couldn't be too much more clear. I see you are back to blaming the victim again.

It isn't always that easy to do when you are a teen trying to your best to make connections in what might help you get a better college, and job, and the IM is with your boss, who is also one of the most powerful men in the country.

That is precisely why the paiges' young age comes into play.

 

You seem to be saying that if you had a 17YO son, you'd be okay with him being plied with liquor and sexually seduced by a 30-something guy while you'd want punitive action taken if he had received sexually-orinted IMs from a 30-something guy?

Forget the legalisms; that is taken for granted that Foley will be charged and tried. I'm getting at your reaction to the two scenarios.

Consentual gets you the pass apparently-- even if it is preceeded with liquor and the elixir of power.

 

I never said I would be ok with anything Studds did. I said it was wrong.

Consentual does get you the pass in a court of law. It doesn't get you the pass as to what is ethically right and wrong. As I have said before what Studds did was clearly wrong. I am glad that he was censured. He should have been. His behavior was inappropriate and unprofessional.

For the record Foley was older than 30 when he was masturbating with his dirty suggestive chats towards these teens.

 

I don't see why you guys go back and forth with giddy. he does this everytime, he turns the issue into you. "so what would you do" or "so you're okay with", when that is so far from the issue its ridiculous. the issue is what did the REPUBLICANS in CONGRESS do?

 

Read the title of the thread. Start a new thread if you want one on that topic.

 

that's not the point, what are you trying to prove. so what if franchiseblade is being overly critical of foley because he's a republican, so what if there was a similar scandal with a democrat. who cares?