Moral Issues, Cover ups, Foley, Elections
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wicked Flea
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 365
Location: Hair of the Dog
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 10/04/06 - 16:13 Post subject:
An update per CNN
AP: Fordham says he told Hastert's office about Foley's conduct 2 years ago
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A senior congressional aide said Wednesday
that he alerted the House Speaker Dennis Hastert's office two years
ago about worrisome conduct by former Rep. Mark Foley with teenage
pages.
Kirk Fordham told The Associated Press that when he was told
about Foley's inappropriate behavior toward pages, he had "more
than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the
House of Representatives asking them to intervene."
The conversations took place long before the e-mail scandal
broke, Fordham said, and at least a year earlier than members of
the House GOP leadership have acknowledged.
"The fact is even prior to the existence of the Foley e-mail
exchanges I had more than one conversation with senior staff at the
highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to
intervene when I was informed of Mr. Foley's inappropriate
behavior," Fordham said.
|
|
|
|
|
thegman
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Sep 2002
Posts: 3088
Location: 12 yards out.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/04/06 - 16:44 Post subject:
| RangerG wrote: | It is getting harder and harder to tell who the "good guys" are..
Do I vote for the party that probably would bring our soldiers home, but raise the heck outa my taxes, panders to the illegal aliens, want's to make Spanish the official national language, make us subserviant to the UN, and wants to ban firearms...
Or do I vote for the party that sends jobs out of the country, supports corrupt business practices, supports corrupt government practices, forces me to play the stock market with my retirement funds and who's supporters profit from the war?
Gee...some choice... |
There are no "good guys" in Washington. I gave up on both parties long ago. The choices on election day are increasingly the lesser of two evils.
Kathleen Parker had some interesting points in her article today. An excerpt:
| Quote: | The pieces of Foley's secret life have landed like trinkets from a political pinata, with each party scrambling to grab their favorites.
Democrats, always delighted to highlight immorality among the family values crowd, have hoisted the prism of hypocrisy and accused Republicans of a cover-up. Republicans have reached for a shard of mirror, pointing out all the bad boys among Democrats.
Suffice it to say, human weakness is bipartisan, and Washington is a lousy market for glass houses.
Republicans also are calling foul on the timing of the story. Why now when many news organizations and others knew of the Foley e-mails months, if not years, ago?
On the right, observers are suggesting a conspiracy to release the e-mails at a time when they could do the most damage. What? Politicians acting politically? Surely not.
On the left, others suggest that Foley was buying cover when he donated $100,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee in July -- right after he was warned to stop his ``over-friendly'' e-mails.
While the pot and the kettle duke it out, new tidbits keep emerging that suggest plenty of dirty politics on both sides. There's the anonymous blog that suddenly materialized in July -- stopsexpredators.blogspot.com -- and that began posting the Foley e-mails.
Also in July, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, a nonprofit group funded in part by George Soros, received copies of the e-mails and filed a complaint with the FBI. That bit of serendipity doesn't quite jibe with reports that the page's parents didn't want to go public. Who leaked the e-mails?
And then there's the Republican Party leadership, who can't bring themselves to say those three little words: ``We blew it.''
Monday, Hastert reiterated that he and others now under siege didn't know about the more lurid instant messages indicating that Foley might be a sexual predator. To which any sane adult replies: So what? A red flag is a red flag; no quibbling over hue.
Even the less noxious e-mails should have been enough to prompt a serious response. Grown-up men do not write ``over-friendly'' e-mails to boys, period. Even if the e-mails Republican leaders knew about weren't sexually explicit, they were clearly inappropriate. In one, Foley asked the former page for a picture and spoke appreciatively of another boy's physique.
Now, ask yourself: If a 50-something man e-mailed your 16-year-old son and asked for a photograph, what would you think? You'd think: This guy better have his life insurance paid up.
What did the Republican leadership do? They confronted Foley and told him to stop it. Dadgummit.
Calling this a Republican cover-up may be overreaching given what we know thus far, but Democrats otherwise are right. Foley was a known creep, and the Republican leadership did not take care of business.
By ignoring Foley's completely unacceptable behavior, they have ceded moral authority to the Democrats and paved the way for the first woman speaker of the House. I'm pretty sure there's a ``foley a deux" in there somewhere. |
|
|
|
|
|
megawill
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1552
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/04/06 - 17:15 Post subject:
| Wicked Flea wrote: | An update per CNN
AP: Fordham says he told Hastert's office about Foley's conduct 2 years ago
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A senior congressional aide said Wednesday
that he alerted the House Speaker Dennis Hastert's office two years
ago about worrisome conduct by former Rep. Mark Foley with teenage
pages.
Kirk Fordham told The Associated Press that when he was told
about Foley's inappropriate behavior toward pages, he had "more
than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the
House of Representatives asking them to intervene."
The conversations took place long before the e-mail scandal
broke, Fordham said, and at least a year earlier than members of
the House GOP leadership have acknowledged.
"The fact is even prior to the existence of the Foley e-mail
exchanges I had more than one conversation with senior staff at the
highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to
intervene when I was informed of Mr. Foley's inappropriate
behavior," Fordham said. |
prediction:
hastert's days as speaker are dwindling...he will not survive this, no matter who wins the house.
|
|
|
|
|
RangerG
Bounty Hunter
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Mar 2003
Posts: 7301
Location: Gmail Server Number 126
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/04/06 - 18:42 Post subject:
From Congressman to (former)President, this continuing sexual inuendo and inappropriate behavior is making a mockery of our government.
I am sick of it... 
|
|
|
|
|
andydp
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 8122
Location: Upstate NY near Albany
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/04/06 - 18:48 Post subject:
| RangerG wrote: | From Congressman to (former) President, this continuing sexual inuendo and inappropriate behavior is making a mockery of our government.
I am sick of it... |
I can't help but keep repeating:
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The GOP has been in virtual complete control of the Government for a lot of years. When you have that sort of power "locked up" you tend to think the entire government will either condone or hide your indiscretions. Let's be realistic when the Dems were in virtual power (think 60's) they did lots of the same.
This is politics, this is Washington DC. Welcome to the pig sty.
PS How much do you want to bet streams of lobbyist dollars are starting to flow towards the Democratic side ?
|
|
|
|
|
RangerG
Bounty Hunter
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Mar 2003
Posts: 7301
Location: Gmail Server Number 126
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/04/06 - 18:55 Post subject:
| andydp wrote: | | RangerG wrote: | From Congressman to (former) President, this continuing sexual inuendo and inappropriate behavior is making a mockery of our government.
I am sick of it... |
I can't help but keep repeating:
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The GOP has been in virtual complete control of the Government for a lot of years. When you have that sort of power "locked up" you tend to think the entire government will either condone or hide your indiscretions. Let's be realistic when the Dems were in virtual power (think 60's) they did lots of the same.
This is politics, this is Washington DC. Welcome to the pig sty.
PS How much do you want to bet streams of lobbyist dollars are starting to flow towards the Democratic side ? |
So we are condemed to careen from one side of the road to the other...back and forth like a drunk driver... every few years...while the taxpayer foots the bill...
WWHTD?
What Would Harry Truman Do?
|
|
|
|
|
andydp
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 8122
Location: Upstate NY near Albany
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/04/06 - 19:07 Post subject:
| RangerG wrote: |
So we are condemed to careen from one side of the road to the other...back and forth like a drunk driver... every few years...while the taxpayer foots the bill...
WWHTD?
What Would Harry Truman Do? |
Something no politico has done in many years: Speak the truth, have the buck stop there and by all means call a dog a dog.
To be honest, no politico in their right mind would/could be able to say the truth and survive past dog catcher.
|
|
|
|
|
airehead
Oompa Loofah
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 18788
Location: Between here and eternity...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/04/06 - 19:11 Post subject:
| RangerG wrote: | | andydp wrote: | | RangerG wrote: | From Congressman to (former) President, this continuing sexual inuendo and inappropriate behavior is making a mockery of our government.
I am sick of it... |
I can't help but keep repeating:
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The GOP has been in virtual complete control of the Government for a lot of years. When you have that sort of power "locked up" you tend to think the entire government will either condone or hide your indiscretions. Let's be realistic when the Dems were in virtual power (think 60's) they did lots of the same.
This is politics, this is Washington DC. Welcome to the pig sty.
PS How much do you want to bet streams of lobbyist dollars are starting to flow towards the Democratic side ? |
So we are condemed to careen from one side of the road to the other...back and forth like a drunk driver... every few years...while the taxpayer foots the bill...
WWHTD?
What Would Harry Truman Do? |
This crap goes on no matter who is in control. The reps don't have ownership on immorality just because they're in power.
Let's consider and revisit term limits for all elected officials. Dems and reps alike.
|
|
|
|
|
airehead
Oompa Loofah
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 18788
Location: Between here and eternity...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/05/06 - 10:08 Post subject:
Ok, so now supposedly the intern was 18 (now 21) when this all happened. That's definitely the legal age of consent.
If this is true, then technically no one did anything wrong, aside from Foley's sexual harassment. (That's if he was told to stop.)
The only wrong done is deceiving the public and making us believe that the intern was but a child.
Otoh, Foley did resign really quickly. I wonder what else is under his rug?
|
|
|
|
|
j1miller
Puppy Love!
|
|
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2002
Posts: 15447
Location: Lost on trail.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/05/06 - 10:18 Post subject:
| airehead wrote: | Ok, so now supposedly the intern was 18 (now 21) when this all happened. That's definitely the legal age of consent.
If this is true, then technically no one did anything wrong, aside from Foley's sexual harassment. (That's if he was told to stop.)
The only wrong done is deceiving the public and making us believe that the intern was but a child.
Otoh, Foley did resign really quickly. I wonder what else is under his rug? |
Maybe he was just embarassed at being caught engaging in sexual "stuff" online and just being creepy in general.
perhaps he wanted to crawl in a hole and die of embarassment.
This type of thing is prevalent in all sorts of people, single, married, gay and straight. More than one marriage has ended over online sex chats. Maybe some good can come of this and people will see how addicting this compulsion can be and start to get help.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/05/06 - 11:19 Post subject:
Someone with whom I had absolutely nothing in common politically told me something that has stuck with me for its truth, along the lines of what Aire said:
If the bus is broken, it doesn't matter who's driving it.
I have no idea what the solution is. Term limits sounds like part of it, but I can see the value of keeping some people in place for more than 4 years. Funding the whole thing a different way also seems like part of the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
airehead
Oompa Loofah
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 18788
Location: Between here and eternity...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/05/06 - 11:25 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | Someone with whom I had absolutely nothing in common politically told me something that has stuck with me for its truth, along the lines of what Aire said:
If the bus is broken, it doesn't matter who's driving it.
I have no idea what the solution is. Term limits sounds like part of it, but I can see the value of keeping some people in place for more than 4 years. Funding the whole thing a different way also seems like part of the answer. |
Keeping some in place for more than 4 years seems good--I'm talking about these types that have been appointed for life, it seems.
Ted Stevens and Kennedy are two that come to mind.
|
|
|
|
|
andydp
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 8122
Location: Upstate NY near Albany
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/05/06 - 13:06 Post subject:
Just read this off Slate.com Last paragraph is interesting and I've highlighted some sections.
What To Call Foley
The congressman isn't a pedophile. He's an ephebophile.
By David Tuller
Posted Wednesday, Oct. 4, 2006, at 5:59 PM ET
"Any suggestion that Mark Foley is a pedophile is false," the former congressman's lawyer, David Roth, said Tuesday at a news conference in West Palm Beach, Fla. He was right, but not for the reasons he probably had in mind.
Foley's creepy electronic communications with 16- and 17-year-olds about masturbatory techniques, penis length, and other sexually explicit topics clearly crossed a moral line, and possibly a legal one, too. But they weren't pedophilia in the clinical sense of the term. Mental-health professionals generally draw a sharp distinction between an attraction to prepubescent children—pedophilia—and sexual interest in older teenagers like the pages and former pages to whom Foley was sending e-mails and IMs.
According to the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, pedophilia involves "intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger)." The disorder is one of a number of conditions known as paraphilias, which the APA defines as sexual obsessions or fixations "that generally involve non-human subjects, children, or other non-consenting adults, or the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner." Examples of other well-known paraphilias include bestiality, necrophilia, exhibitionism, sadomasochism, and voyeurism. Some therapies that focus on changing cognitive and behavioral patterns are believed to help sufferers of paraphilias control themselves, if they are motivated to do so. But fully overcoming their predilections is a more difficult challenge.
Based on what has been revealed so far, former Rep. Foley seems to suffer from a different condition: ephebophilia, which is defined as a sexual attraction to post-pubescent adolescents and older teenagers. The DSM IV doesn't include ephebophilia as a diagnostic category. Sexual contact with children is explicitly illegal in all jurisdictions in the United States. But such contact between older teenagers and adults presents a murkier legal picture. The laws on age of consent vary from state to state, and prosecutors have wide latitude to determine whether to charge an individual with a sexual offense.
Many jurisdictions, among them the District of Columbia, have established 16 as the legal age of consent; in other states, that marker is 17 or 18. But D.C.'s age of consent won't necessarily get Rep. Foley off the hook. For one thing, some of his activities might have taken place in other jurisdictions with different laws, such as Florida, where the age of consent is 18. Moreover, a patchwork of state and federal statutes—including legislation that the congressman helped pass as co-chair of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children—outline circumstances that can lead to tougher sentencing for an underlying sex crime or amount to punishable offenses in themselves, even if no sex occurred. Depending upon the specific law, such exacerbating circumstances might include enticing youth into sexual behavior via the Internet, engaging in graphic discussions of sexual acts with minors, abusing a position of authority in pursuit of sexual gratification, and plying adolescents with alcohol or drugs. In the Foley case, prosecutors are scrambling to interview pages and reviewing electronic communications to determine what, if any, crimes the former congressman committed and where he might have committed them.
|
|
|
|
|
airehead
Oompa Loofah
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 18788
Location: Between here and eternity...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/05/06 - 14:43 Post subject:
| Quote: | SEX CHAT WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD
On Tuesday ABC news released a high-impact instant message exchange between Foley and, as ABC explained, a young man "under the age of 18."
ABC headlined the story: "New Foley Instant Messages; Had Internet Sex While Awaiting House Vote"
But upon reviewing the records, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, the young man was in fact over the age of 18 at the time of the exchange.
A network source explains, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday.
Developing...
|
18 is legal in every state.
|
|
|
|
|
andydp
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 8122
Location: Upstate NY near Albany
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/05/06 - 16:43 Post subject:
| airehead wrote: | | Quote: | SEX CHAT WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD
On Tuesday ABC news released a high-impact instant message exchange between Foley and, as ABC explained, a young man "under the age of 18."
ABC headlined the story: "New Foley Instant Messages; Had Internet Sex While Awaiting House Vote"
But upon reviewing the records, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, the young man was in fact over the age of 18 at the time of the exchange.
A network source explains, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday.
Developing...
|
18 is legal in every state. |
Note the "took place before" part of the statement.
I'm just thinking it may have been legal, but this has the same amount and type of "sleaze" the Lewinski thing had. I think heads will roll more from whatever covering up took place than from Foley's actions themselves. Plus ihn one of the e mails/IM's he was inviting the kid to his place for drinks (which is illegal in every state).
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
