Thoughts?

[Booge]

An awful lot of people voted Republican based on the gay marriage issue in 2004. Were they brain dead?

 

Do you think the gay marriage issue and one Congressman sending improper pm's to a page are equal in importance? Comparing apples and atom bombs.

[HHSDad]

Anybody who casts a vote based on the Foley incident is brain dead. If the Dems have to hope for that, they are even more short on ideas and solutions than I thought. And that's saying something.

 

"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy."

I think the Bob Ney should be a much bigger issue for the GOP than Foley is. The Ney story plays right into the hands of the Dems.

[75center]

Do you think the gay marriage issue and one Congressman sending improper pm's to a page are equal in importance? Comparing apples and atom bombs.

 

The issue is about how the Republican leadership handled Foley. Depending on how that shakes out it could be a huge deciding issue.

[GusMcRae]

Gus-you have your answer.

:laugh: I love to just sit back and read.:lol:

[H]

Do you think the gay marriage issue and one Congressman sending improper pm's to a page are equal in importance? Comparing apples and atom bombs.

 

It's not one congressman, it's a leadership structure that apparently looked the other way for a long time after finding out that one of their members was trolling for sex with impressionable teenagers.

 

Not to worry, I'm sure all will come to light during congressional hearings into the Foley incident over the next few weeks...

[Covercorner]

I totally agree. We have a debtor culture, personally and through our government. Nobody seems to care about having to pay it back later...

I wish I could balance my checkbook like the government does.

[Booge]

It's not one congressman, it's a leadership structure that apparently looked the other way for a long time after finding out that one of their members was trolling for sex with impressionable teenagers.

 

Not to worry, I'm sure all will come to light during congressional hearings into the Foley incident over the next few weeks...

 

Typical Dem ploy. First of all, "trolling for sex" is extremely inaccurate. No one has ever accused Foley of having sex or soliciting sex. Also, the Dems try to bring Hastert into it, now you are saying it's the "leadership structure." Again, you have not a single fact to base your wild theories on. Just throw stuff out there and hope it sticks.

 

Same old same old for the Dems. Sure there will be hearings, and in the end it will still be what it is right now - a guy sent some improper messages.

[Sting]

I think the Bob Ney should be a much bigger issue for the GOP than Foley is. The Ney story plays right into the hands of the Dems.

I think the Dems are afraid to push too hard because alot of their members are vulnerable to the same scandal.

[H]

Typical Dem ploy. First of all, "trolling for sex" is extremely inaccurate. No one has ever accused Foley of having sex or soliciting sex. Also, the Dems try to bring Hastert into it, now you are saying it's the "leadership structure." Again, you have not a single fact to base your wild theories on. Just throw stuff out there and hope it sticks.

 

 

Interpret Foley's messages as you will, but I think most would agree that they convey a bit more than an innocent casual interest in 16 and 17 year old boys. Would you want someone in a position of power speaking to your son or daughter in that manner? But Foley's conduct is not what reflects badly on the Republicans--it is the apparent unwillingness to deal with the problem when it was discovered. By the term leadership structure, I was referring to Dennis Hastert. These are not my wild theories, they are statements made by former Foley aide Kirk Fordham, who testified under oath to the House Ethics Committee. I imagine the penalty for perjury to Congress is severe. I can't think of a reason Fordham would perjure himself if his claims are baseless. It will be interesting to see if anyone from Hastert's office has the cajones to give contradictory testimony under oath.

[Frances Bavier]

... No one has ever accused Foley of having sex or soliciting sex....

 

It would appear that we have been reading different accounts of what transpired.

 

Anyone with a functional brain stem, that reads the Instant Messages from Foley to the page, can only draw one conclusion - and it isn't even remotely in doubt. That is why he resigned, and it is why everyone in politics is putting as much distance as possible between themselves and Foley.

 

There is absolutely NO doubt about the intentions of those IM's. None.

 

 

Frances

[Booge]

It would appear that we have been reading different accounts of what transpired.

 

Anyone with a functional brain stem, that reads the Instant Messages from Foley to the page, can only draw one conclusion - and it isn't even remotely in doubt. That is why he resigned, and it is why everyone in politics is putting as much distance as possible between themselves and Foley.

 

There is absolutely NO doubt about the intentions of those IM's. None.

 

 

Frances

 

And anyone with a semi-functioning brain stem knows that intent is not a crime. I am not defending him, but again, there is no evidence yet he solicited sex or had sex. If intent only is all there is, he is gone...end of story. The Dems don't want it to end there, but I think they are out of luck, again.

[shooter]

It would appear that we have been reading different accounts of what transpired.

 

Anyone with a functional brain stem, that reads the Instant Messages from Foley to the page, can only draw one conclusion - and it isn't even remotely in doubt. That is why he resigned, and it is why everyone in politics is putting as much distance as possible between themselves and Foley.

 

There is absolutely NO doubt about the intentions of those IM's. None.

 

Frances

 

For the charge of soliciting sex to stick those IMs must amount to an actual solicitation which is legally very difficult to prove unless there is a explicit "would you like to have sex" kind of request. I don't believe those IM's contain such a request so I don't believe (legally) Foley solicited sex. Based upon the IMs, it may be a very reasonable assumption on your part that sex was what Foley wanted, and perhaps his intentions were to eventually make such a request but what he actually did was talk about sex and not request sex. However, just talking about sex with underage kids is probably as crime in itself.

[Frances Bavier]

For the charge of soliciting sex to stick those IMs must amount to an actual solicitation which is legally very difficult to prove unless there is a explicit "would you like to have sex" kind of request. I don't believe those IM's contain such a request so I don't believe (legally) Foley solicited sex. Based upon the IMs, it may be a very reasonable assumption on your part that sex was what Foley wanted, and perhaps his intentions were to eventually make such a request but what he actually did was talk about sex and not request sex. However, just talking about sex with underage kids is probably as crime in itself.

 

Shooter -

 

I understand the distinction you are making, between "soliciting sex" as it is legally defined as a criminal act, and the fact that Foley does not actually cross the line of asking the page for sex (at least, not in the IM's that I have read). Your point is taken.

 

That said, I am a parent. I have a 14 year old son, and an 11 year old daughter. If you have read the IM's (and by your posts, it appears that you have), then you know - beyond the shadow of a doubt - what Foley was doing. To put it in non-legal terms, this dirtbag was "trolling", and you and I both know what he was trolling for.

 

Let's be generous, and say that Foley was not actually seeking to engage this page (or others) in sexual activity. Let's say that his only crime is "caring deeply" for the health and well being of a page.

 

I'll go far enough to say that if someone were inquiring about the children in the neighborhood that I grew up in (in Eastern Kentucky), using the language that Foley used in these IM's, that person would only need to worry about the legality of his actions as an afterthought.

 

Personally, I couldn't care less if the Foley scandal accelerates into an even bigger black eye for the Republican party than it already has. It will go as far as it has legs, with the understanding that political forces on both sides of the aisle will be doing their best to either exploit it, or cover it up. Just having this slimeball exposed for what he is, is an excellent first step.

 

 

Frances

[Booge]

Shooter -

 

I understand the distinction you are making, between "soliciting sex" as it is legally defined as a criminal act, and the fact that Foley does not actually cross the line of asking the page for sex (at least, not in the IM's that I have read). Your point is taken.

 

That said, I am a parent. I have a 14 year old son, and an 11 year old daughter. If you have read the IM's (and by your posts, it appears that you have), then you know - beyond the shadow of a doubt - what Foley was doing. To put it in non-legal terms, this dirtbag was "trolling", and you and I both know what he was trolling for.

 

Let's be generous, and say that Foley was not actually seeking to engage this page (or others) in sexual activity. Let's say that his only crime is "caring deeply" for the health and well being of a page.

 

I'll go far enough to say that if someone were inquiring about the children in the neighborhood that I grew up in (in Eastern Kentucky), using the language that Foley used in these IM's, that person would only need to worry about the legality of his actions as an afterthought.

 

Personally, I couldn't care less if the Foley scandal accelerates into an even bigger black eye for the Republican party than it already has. It will go as far as it has legs, with the understanding that political forces on both sides of the aisle will be doing their best to either exploit it, or cover it up. Just having this slimeball exposed for what he is, is an excellent first step.

 

 

Frances

 

You didn't address me, but I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt here, The messages were improper, period. All I'm saying is it's one man, and not the GOP leadership or the GOP in general.

[Bailey Howell]

Intent can be a crime.