Where did all the "It's just sex" Democrats go? - Page 3

6SpeedTA95 · 10-05-2006, 10:27 AM

If hastert knew about the emails and IM's he should resign if it was just overly friendly emails and Foley said he'd quit then I dont see what the deal is. It does seem though that Hastert didn't follow through thoroughly like you'd expect someone in his position to do.

Scrum · 10-05-2006, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

If hastert knew about the emails and IM's he should resign if it was just overly friendly emails and Foley said he'd quit then I dont see what the deal is. It does seem though that Hastert didn't follow through thoroughly like you'd expect someone in his position to do.

You would think they would have brought it to the attention off the people running the page program and they would have at least done an investigation.

ballz2wallz · 10-05-2006, 10:32 AM

Hastert did say an attempt was made a while ago:

http://www.libertylounge.net/forums/43527-post56.html

WickedLou9 · 10-05-2006, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I think, as we've seen in the past, the Republicans are only concerned with the person in question; they would be happy if the person involved stepped down as they should. That doesn't happen though, does it?

No they are only concerned with damage control. They want to stay in power and understandably so. The democrats want power back. They are both trying to do what they can with this situation to achieve thier goals. Nothing more. You are trying to read some sort of hipocracy into this whole thing and there is none. Both sides are doing what they have always done and always will do.

ballz2wallz · 10-05-2006, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

No they are only concerned with damage control. They want to stay in power and understandably so. The democrats want power back. They are both trying to do what they can with this situation to achieve thier goals. Nothing more. You are trying to read some sort of hipocracy into this whole thing and there is none. Both sides are doing what they have always done and always will do.

Well that just makes politics boring, doesn't it?

Scrum · 10-05-2006, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Hastert did say an attempt was made a while ago:

http://www.libertylounge.net/forums/43527-post56.html

Reynold chief of staff says he had a meeting with Hastert a full year before that.

"A former Congressional aide said Wednesday that Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's office knew about reports of 'inappropriate behavior' by Representative Mark Foley far earlier than Mr. Hastert's office has acknowledged," says the New York Times .

"Mr. Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, denied the account of the former aide, Kirk Fordham, who said in an interview that he informed Mr. Palmer of the concerns about Mr. Foley before 2004. Mr. Hastert's office had previously said it first learned of concerns about Mr. Foley in the fall of 2005."

- Media Notes Extra - washingtonpost.com

So we can stp with the "witchhunt" talk. This runs deeper.

ballz2wallz · 10-05-2006, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

So we can stp with the "witchhunt" talk. This runs deeper.

DosEquis · 10-05-2006, 11:03 AM

It is just sex, when it is a 22 year old woman getting freaky with a 50 year old married man. While that might not be morally correct, it is most certainly not violating any laws that have to do with underaged teens and 50 year old men.

Clearly what this guy has done is illegal. While we do not have all the details yet, it has to be significant for him and his chief of staff to resign. It has to be significant when Boehner and others are saying "we told the speaker and thought it would have been taken care of". What do they mean by "taken care of" and what did they find that was so significant as to warrant "taking care of" Foley? It has to be significant when even republicans are suggesting that the speaker step aside.

The emails were not a big deal. The aim convo appears to be what is in question. Now there is rumors he got drunk and ventured over to the page dorm. He chased 16 and 17 year old boys. Its illegal to do that and the speaker did nothing about it when he was told. That is the bottom line.

WickedLou9 · 10-05-2006, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

It is just sex, when it is a 22 year old woman getting freaky with a 50 year old married man. While that might not be morally correct, it is most certainly not violating any laws that have to do with underaged teens and 50 year old men.

Clearly what this guy has done is illegal. While we do not have all the details yet, it has to be significant for him and his chief of staff to resign. It has to be significant when Boehner and others are saying "we told the speaker and thought it would have been taken care of". What do they mean by "taken care of" and what did they find that was so significant as to warrant "taking care of" Foley? It has to be significant when even republicans are suggesting that the speaker step aside.

The emails were not a big deal. The aim convo appears to be what is in question. Now there is rumors he got drunk and ventured over to the page dorm. He chased 16 and 17 year old boys. Its illegal to do that and the speaker did nothing about it when he was told. That is the bottom line.

I don't think you can say "Clearly it was illegal". It was immoral yes.. but illegal? Hmm. maybe.. maybe not. Flirting is not illegal. Actually trying to engage a minor in a sex act is. Did he actually try to set up a meeting for the purposes of sex? I don't think we know that.

Stylerod · 10-05-2006, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Clearly what this guy has done is illegal.

No we don't. From the looks of it, it might have been two men IM'ing each other. 18 is an adult.

DosEquis · 10-05-2006, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

No we don't. From the looks of it, it might have been two men IM'ing each other. 18 is an adult.

So why resign? Why is his chief of staff resigning? Why did others "warn of Foley" as far back as 1995?

Based upon their back peddling, resignations, and actions, i think it is safe to say what he did is going to be a legal matter.

Stylerod · 10-05-2006, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

So why resign? Why is his chief of staff resigning? Why did others "warn of Foley" as far back as 1995?

Based upon their back peddling, resignations, and actions, i think it is safe to say what he did is going to be a legal matter.

Because being in a position of power and hitting on young interns or pages is a no no. You don't do it. It could be considared sexual harrasment.

Foley's repuation was ruined, he knew that, so he resigned.

WickedLou9 · 10-05-2006, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

So why resign? Why is his chief of staff resigning? Why did others "warn of Foley" as far back as 1995?

Based upon their back peddling, resignations, and actions, i think it is safe to say what he did is going to be a legal matter.

because the GOp is the party is the party that wants to ban gay marriage. Thier constiuents won't like this so he has to resign for the good of the party.

tbone · 10-05-2006, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I would never defend a pedophile.

That said, it's necessary to prove first he is a pedophile before we attack him as such.

pe‧do‧phile /ˈpidəˌfaɪl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pee-duh-fahyl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun Psychiatry. an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.

Call me crazy, but I don't think 17 yrs old counts as 'young children'. Let's turn this around; would someone pursuing a girl of 17 be considered a pedophile, or a dirty old man? I can personally attest that I've seen some 17 (even 16) yr old girls that are FAR from 'children', and sometimes I can barely tell the difference between them and college girls; until they open their mouths and actually say something

Depends on the age of the girl. If the man is over 50, yes it would still fall into this category. If the man is 18-22 than no.

Dumpy Dooby · 10-05-2006, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

We just look for consistency, that's all.

You mean like how the Republicans were whipping out the "family values" card when it came to Clinton getting a hummer or the gays getting married?

I guess they were consistent in that sense, but then we have this problem with them not whipping it out (

) when it comes to a pedophiliac Congressman.

infinite loop · 10-05-2006, 11:47 AM

THIS is your idea of damage control?

Scrum · 10-05-2006, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

No we don't. From the looks of it, it might have been two men IM'ing each other. 18 is an adult.

Link that the kid was 18?

And not the drudge info that even conservatives are refuting.

motivez · 10-05-2006, 03:00 PM

There are multiple pages, one came out today and said as far back as 10 years ago he was recieving sexually suggestive IM's from Foley..

The idea that this is somehow similar to Clinton's blowjob with an adult is honestly an insult to intelligent thought, and obviously a red herring.

Then again, maybe it's not suprising. After all, Clinton IS to blame for everything, right?

ballz2wallz · 10-05-2006, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

The idea that this is somehow similar to Clinton's blowjob with an adult is honestly an insult to intelligent thought, and obviously a red herring.

Is a comparison of those who get caught in a sex scandal and step down (as they should) vs. those caught in a sex scandal and refuse to step down not a valid comparison? I certainly think it's valid, and interesting to see what parties they belong to.