[Ω]

Meet PedoBear!

[itai195]

My understanding is Foley sent the e-mails from Florida, where the age of consent is 18. But you're right, the Internet solicitation would violate federal law.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Ω

Meet PedoBear!

Heh

[pooka]

Just so I'm clear, would this have been cool if the minor had been a girl? And in my best attempt to channel Cody...

If this had been an attractive female politician soliciting sex from a 16 year old boy over the internet...

WTF am I talking about. All women soliciting sex online are dudes.

Yup, no matter how you slice it. Wrong.

[houstonmacbro]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I feel sorry for the conservatives. They are so religiously devoted to the party and their W.essiah that they defend sex predators by attacking Democrats.

seems to be a republican tactic. whenever it is an argument they cannot win on logic, they throw up scare and fear and ... the DEMOCRATS...

it would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

how many times have i heard "well, clinton this... clinton that...." instead of responding to the issues at hand.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I believe the age of consent is still 16 in DC. From what I've read, strangely enough, having sex with that 16-year-old kid wouldn't have been illegal, but soliciting sex with him over the internet would be. Thanks to the laws that Foley himself got passed.

Irony is a bitch sometimes... LOL

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by pooka

Just so I'm clear, would this have been cool if the minor had been a girl? And in my best attempt to channel Cody...

I actually think the outrage would be even stronger. Sadly, I think society things that boys of that age are such horny bundles of hormones that they can't be manipulated, they just "want it."

Originally Posted by pooka

If this had been an attractive female politician soliciting sex from a 16 year old boy over the internet...

WTF am I talking about. All women soliciting sex online are dudes.

Yup, no matter how you slice it. Wrong.

I'm still trying to figure out if there is an attractive female politician in Washington. I'll get back to you if I find one.

In the mean time, does this mean you think Foley is attractive? LOL j/k

I wonder if a former member of the US House of Representatives gets the title of "the Honorable B*tch" when they meet their new cell mate, Bubba.

[ebuddy]

First of all, let's get this straight; the Republicans on this board are not defending Foley when they attack democrats guilty of similar offenses, they are defending Republicans. Pointing to the hypocrisy of the left is a full-time job. This is no more defending Foley than your indictments against Foley in this thread is defending the host of guilty Dems throughout history. I've made my position on Foley clear as have many other Republicans and Conservatives on this board, yet one mention is made of leftist hypocrisy and a flurry of indictments regarding "protecting pedophiles" is launched at them from the left. Give me a break already.

Clinton (D) proposes Social Security reform. D's all for it. Bush proposes Social Security reform. D's entirely oppose it.

Clinton (D) Administration firebombs a compound of US citizens in Waco. Relative silence from D's on civil liberties and governmental power run amuck. Bush outwardly defends wiretapping policy in place since the Carter (D) Administration and all of a sudden Dems are crying about black helicopters and the ILLUMINATI!!!

Military action at the hands of a (D) in Yugoslavia and Iraq and nary a word from the left, including all the indictments against Saddam for possessing and threatening to use WMDs.

Spliffdaddy points out the numerous instances of similar leftist indiscretion and what is he to you? A defender of pedophilia.

Maybe a few of the more concerned of the left could try to interfere a little with the "science" coming from the APA on pedophilia. That might be a good start to ending the normalization of it. Work to make states least restrictive on pedophilia (liberal states such as Massachusetts and Vermont) a little tougher on these sickos and instead of indicting conservatives for being Christian fascists out to end world fun, try fighting as hard as conservatives for issues like Megan's Law. Then you may be able to stake some moral high ground here. Otherwise, you're just opportunists trying to exacerbate the polarization of an issue that should have absolutely nothing to do with party affiliation and everything to do with strengthening the conditions under which our future leaders can flourish.

Enough already. Put 'em all in prison and be offended by offensive behavior regardless of whether there's a (D) or an (R) involved. Period.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

First of all, let's get this straight; the Republicans on this board are not defending Foley when they attack democrats guilty of similar offenses, they are defending Republicans..

Why? Its not like the lefties in the lounge were all 'OMG republican'

No, the conservatives in the lounge politicized this. Probably for no reason other than to stop talking about Foley and derail it into a sins of the Democrats thread. Wonder why.

[ironknee]

READER DISCRETION STRONGLY ADVISED: Foley's Exchange With Underage Page

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Clinton (D) proposes Social Security reform. D's all for it. Bush proposes Social Security reform. D's entirely oppose it.

There was a huge difference between the reforms. Bush's reform was typical for Republican reforms, and Clinton's was typical for Democrats. That's a large part of why D's opposed one and supported the other, not just dumb partisanship.

Clinton (D) Administration firebombs a compound of US citizens in Waco. Relative silence from D's on civil liberties and governmental power run amuck. Bush outwardly defends wiretapping policy in place since the Carter (D) Administration and all of a sudden Dems are crying about black helicopters and the ILLUMINATI!!!

Firebombs? Firebombs? That's right up there with "Bush flew the planes into the WTC!" Waco was an apocalyptic cult in which the leader caused the members' deaths, partially from setting fires and partially from simply shooting them in the head. The government screwed up, there's no doubt about that, but they didn't "firebomb" Waco.

But again, this is all distraction. The Republicans jumped in here with the partisanship, not the Democrats. spacefreak jumped right in with gratuitous attacks on Democrats before it had been made political at all. Every Democrat here is perfectly aware of the fact that things like this are not political or partisan. It could affect the election, there's no doubt about that. But it could just as easily have been a Democrat.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

But wait. I'm not finished.

Some of you folks act like a 'leading' email or an IM to an underage person is some sort of criminal offense. Well, only if it's a Republican doing it. If it's a Democrat having gay sex with an underage page - then Democrats think it's none of our business. I present to you:

Gerry Eastman Studds (born May 12, 1937) is a retired American politician, born in Mineola, New York. He served as a Democratic Congressman for Massachusetts from 1973 until 1996. He was the first openly homosexual member of the US Congress and, more generally, the first openly gay national politician in the US. In 1983, he admitted having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male page a decade earlier.

Studds refused to apologize for his misconduct.

thanks wikipedia.

Soooo, in 1983 he admitted to doing FAR WORSE than what Foley did....yet he served for 13 more years.

Stuff it, Democrats. Bunch of hypocrites.

Your smoke screen isn't working, spliff. Not one poster has argued that Democratic pedophiles are safe. IMO, all pedophiles, whether Dem, Rep or otherwise, should be treated the same. Your insistence that Dems forgot or accepted their own pedophiles is absurd and underscores the fact that you have no defense for Foley and the apparent crooked acts of the GOP leadership.

Oh, and BTW, Polanski, a pedophile in his own right, was not:

a. elected to represent a portion of the US population
b. co-chair of of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children

To compare him to Foley is absurd. That said, Polanski gets no defense here.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The only folks you'll see defending pedophiles are Democrats.

Can you please give one credible source for this accusation? Just one.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by art_director

Can you please give one credible source for this accusation? Just one.

I second that motion.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by houstonmacbro

how many times have i heard "well, clinton this... clinton that...." instead of responding to the issues at hand.

The Reps have nothing to go on but fear and bashing Bill Clinton. Sad given that he left office six years ago. The Reps have taken a turn for the worse.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by art_director

The Reps have nothing to go on but fear and bashing Bill Clinton. Sad given that he left office six years ago. The Reps have taken a turn for the worse.

Unfortunately, while this is fairly true, the Democrats have very little to offer aside from finger-pointing, Bush-bashing and whining about an election that took place six years ago.

They both suck.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

They both suck.

I tend to agree.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by BRussell

You are defending Foley and the Republican conspirators, by attacking the messenger, shifting focus, claiming that "others do it too," and all the other tactics you've been using throughout this thread. Loyal Republicans are now reduced to applying their usual tactics in defense of child predators and those who cover for them. Congratulations.

Yeah, whatever you say. If the Democrats were truly concerned about the well-being of children, they wouldn't have sat on these messages, especially the 2003 IM (which Republicans didn't have contrary to to many posts in here saying otherwise) for years. That's OK. There will be an investigation into who was holding these messages for months and years. What's your guess - Democtrat or Republican? Once that comes out, the whole "defend children from predators" platitude is smothered.

Republicans have repeatedly crucified Foley despite attempts from the left to convince the public otherwise. It could have been left there. But the left's insistance that this be for political gain, and that this is some sort of Republican pattern of sleaze, opens the floor to wider debate.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Yeah, whatever you say. If the Democrats were truly concerned about the well-being of children, they wouldn't have sat on these messages, especially the 2003 IM for years.

Proof?

But the left's insistance that this be for political gain, and that this is some sort of Republican pattern of sleaze, opens the floor to wider debate.

Allow me to quote the very first response in this thread, so we can see who got this politicization ball rolling:

Like a good Republican, he stepped down. Got me thinking about how Dems rarely if ever step down, even when their semen is found all over the clothes of interns, or when the FBI gets video of them accepting bribes and later find $90,000 cash sitting in the dude's freezer.

[art_director]

omitted.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Yeah, whatever you say. If the Democrats were truly concerned about the well-being of children, they wouldn't have sat on these messages, especially the 2003 IM (which Republicans didn't have contrary to to many posts in here saying otherwise) for years. That's OK. There will be an investigation into who was holding these messages for months and years. What's your guess - Democtrat or Republican? Once that comes out, the whole "defend children from predators" platitude is smothered.

Republicans have repeatedly crucified Foley despite attempts from the left to convince the public otherwise. It could have been left there. But the left's insistance that this be for political gain, and that this is some sort of Republican pattern of sleaze, opens the floor to wider debate.

I don't care who covered it up, what their party is, etc. Anyone who can be proven to have known that underage pages were being talked to by a Congressman in this manner should be punished in some way.

Problem is, we'll never know who knew what and when.

It does further the average Joe's perception that the members of Congress think they are above the law.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I don't care who covered it up, what their party is, etc. Anyone who can be proven to have known that underage pages were being talked to by a Congressman in this manner should be punished in some way.

Problem is, we'll never know who knew what and when.

It does further the average Joe's perception that the members of Congress think they are above the law.

I'm with you, hang anyone, regardless of the color Kool-Aide they prefer, if they had prior knowledge of this criminal activity. In fact, I hope they DO find a Dem involved. Then the entire fooking Congress will finally look like the scum they truly are.

Viva la Resistance!

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Yeah, whatever you say. If the Democrats were truly concerned about the well-being of children, they wouldn't have sat on these messages, especially the 2003 IM (which Republicans didn't have contrary to to many posts in here saying otherwise) for years. That's OK. There will be an investigation into who was holding these messages for months and years. What's your guess - Democtrat or Republican? Once that comes out, the whole "defend children from predators" platitude is smothered.

Republicans have repeatedly crucified Foley despite attempts from the left to convince the public otherwise. It could have been left there. But the left's insistance that this be for political gain, and that this is some sort of Republican pattern of sleaze, opens the floor to wider debate.

Haha, this is great. So Democrats were the ones who were told about Foley and didn't do anything. Despite the fact that the Republican House leadership, including Hastert and Beohner, have admitted to knowing about him and not telling anyone else, let alone any of the Democrats. Their excuse is that the parents of the boy involved didn't want this to get out.

Man, it's great for your ego to surround yourself in partisan media like you apparently do, but they repeatedly feed you guys this kind of bogus information. Whatever it takes for your self-esteem though. My prediction is that Hastert will be gone one way or another in the next 6 weeks.

[ironknee]

foley says he's an alcololic and is going into rehab, good for him

but how does that explain what he did?

btw haster and them all better get their notes straight

[ironknee]

Foley on America's Most Wanted: "If I were one of these sickos..." you tube

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by itai195

Allow me to quote the very first response in this thread, so we can see who got this politicization ball rolling:

Yeah, because the DNC comes in here and reads my posts before deciding whether to exploit something for political gain.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Haha, this is great. So Democrats were the ones who were told about Foley and didn't do anything. Despite the fact that the Republican House leadership, including Hastert and Beohner, have admitted to knowing about him and not telling anyone else, let alone any of the Democrats. Their excuse is that the parents of the boy involved didn't want this to get out.

Man, it's great for your ego to surround yourself in partisan media like you apparently do, but they repeatedly feed you guys this kind of bogus information. Whatever it takes for your self-esteem though. My prediction is that Hastert will be gone one way or another in the next 6 weeks.

Hastert stated he knew about the more vanilla 2005 IM, which by itself can be interpreted in numerous ways. FBI even had a look at it and found no grounds for action. The 2003 IM is the biggie. That's the one that certain people were holding on to.

I highly doubt Hastert or anyone else in GOP leadership would cover for Foley IF they knew about this2003 IM. Seriously, step back and think about it. Foleys a representative in a traditionally Republican district. Not reacting is an lose-lose proposition. Squeezing Foley out and replacing him with another Repub would not have been hard.

This garbage about Hastert and others knowing and not doing anything is just that - garbage. It makes no logical sense. Neither you or I in Hastert's position would risk something like that - our majority, our own political life, etc.. And we can't hold a candle to Hastert's political skills.

If you truly believe Hastert knew about the 2003 IM a while ago, then you're not playing with a full deck. Either that, or your desire for power is so great that you've given up logic and common sense.

I suppose I could be wrong. But I wouldn't bet the house on it.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Yeah, because the DNC comes in here and reads my posts before deciding whether to exploit something for political gain.

Point being that the damage control started before all the information was even available. Anyway, I think most of us are reacting to what's going on in this thread.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Like a good Republican, he stepped down.

Apparently not until he was caught.

[marden]

Is Drew Carey Dennis Hastert's secret love child?

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by marden

Find a good photo of Hastert.

Put this square peg in a round hole.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

If you truly believe Hastert knew about the 2003 IM a while ago, then you're not playing with a full deck. Either that, or your desire for power is so great that you've given up logic and common sense.

My desire for power? What in the world are you talking about, spacefreak? Has this political forum turned into some kind of delusion for you?

I don't know, nor do care enough to want to know, about 2003 vs. 2005 IMs vs. emails. I only know what the Republican leadership has acknowledged: They knew about Foley's behaviors a long time ago, they made sure that Democrats didn't find out about it, and they obviously didn't take appropriate action to stop him.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by marden

Is Drew Carey Dennis Hastert's secret love child?

Nah. Mimi might be, but Drew isn't.

Had to respond in some way to this post simply to try to get this thread to page 5 so I can stop seeing "Pedobear" every time I look at the thread.

By the way, Drew was in the Marine Corps. He originally got his "nerd" glasses when he wore the standard issue glasses given to Marines. They became his signature and now he's stuck with them forever.

[marden]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Nah. Mimi might be, but Drew isn't.

Had to respond in some way to this post simply to try to get this thread to page 5 so I can stop seeing "Pedobear" every time I look at the thread.

By the way, Drew was in the Marine Corps. He originally got his "nerd" glasses when he wore the standard issue glasses given to Marines. They became his signature and now he's stuck with them forever.

I really like him. He seems like a nice guy. Very funny and smart. If there is ever a movie that needs someone to play Hastert they should consider Drew Carey for the part, don't you think?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by goMac

Apparently not until he was caught

Yup. That was my point. He stepped down when he was caught.

And as for the warnings, there seems to be some different takes. Even the original page who said they were warned is changing his story after other pages in the same class disputed the warning story.

FIRST VERSION
Matthew Loraditch, a page in the 2001-2002 class, told ABC News he and other pages were warned about Foley by a supervisor.

REVISED VERSION
Matthew Loraditch, who worked as a page with Ms. Gallo and Mr. McDonald in 2001 and 2002, said a supervisor had once casually mentioned that Mr. Foley “was odd” and that he later saw sexually explicit text messages that Mr. Foley had sent to two former pages after they left the program.

But Mr. Loraditch said he was never warned by program supervisors to stay away from him. “He was friendly,” said Mr. Loraditch, who maintains a Web site for alumni and attends Towson University in Maryland. “He would talk to us more than some other members would.”

[marden]

Resign, Mr. Speaker�-�Editorials/Op-Ed�-�The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

Resign, Mr. Speaker
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
October 3, 2006

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I don't know, nor do care enough to want to know, about 2003 vs. 2005 IMs vs. emails. I only know what the Republican leadership has acknowledged: They knew about Foley's behaviors a long time ago, they made sure that Democrats didn't find out about it, and they obviously didn't take appropriate action to stop him.

They knew that he was gay and nice to underlings. Is that enought to oust someone from power? If so, then we have a lot of offices nationwide that could use a cleansing. And Democats did know Foley was gay. Gay militant groups have been after him for years because he didn't support their position on some bill.

Contrary to what you spread, Republican leadership has not acknowledged reading the contents of the 2003 IM. It was kept from Republican leadership. You claim to not care about the difference, but that makes all the difference in the world.

You want to convict a man based solely on a "How's your summer going... send me a photo" email? That's absolutely absurd. Even the FBI concluded there wasn't anything worth a damn in it.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by marden

Resign, Mr. Speaker�-�Editorials/Op-Ed�-�The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

Resign, Mr. Speaker
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
October 3, 2006

I would echo the sentiments of that piece.

[marden]

Originally Posted by art_director

I would echo the sentiments of that piece.

Unfortunately, so do I.

[davesimondotcom]

Does anyone else wonder how many other criminals are in Congress being protected by other members simply to hold on to a precious political advantage?

It's scary.

[Dakar]

Yup, they protect their own before the people. Power does what it does.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Does anyone else wonder how many other criminals are in Congress being protected by other members simply to hold on to a precious political advantage?

It's scary.

I would guess that both sides of the aisle are hiding their own. This is precisely the reason I believe we need a new government. Our courts are corrupt, our leaders are corrupt and our system works as well as a car that lost three wheels. If we're the shining example of democracy then I think we've demonstrated that that system eventually falls apart.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by art_director

I would guess that both sides of the aisle are hiding their own. This is precisely the reason I believe we need a new government. Our courts are corrupt, our leaders are corrupt and our system works as well as a car that lost three wheels. If we're the shining example of democracy then I think we've demonstrated that that system eventually falls apart.

It's not the general governmental structure that is failed. It's the fact that things have been manipulated around so that certain groups of people really run the show.

They all rail against "special interest groups" but they are only against the ones that don't give them money.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

They knew that he was gay and nice to underlings.

Hastert denied any knowledge of any emails at first, and has since acknowledged they knew. These people are lying. The boy described Foley's exchanges with him as "sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick" (I think that's 13 times). They didn't do anything about it. They told the Republican campaign committee, and Foley saw no consequences, and continued to be the lead Republican on child sex issues. They knew a helluva lot more than that he was "nice to underlings."

[art_director]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

It's not the general governmental structure that is failed.

In my view, it is the system.

My father-in-law is in state law enforcement. He's a high ranking member of his department and manages a substantial budget. Three years ago he was coming up on the end of his fiscal year and had money left over in his budget. He had two choices as defined by the system:

a. Invent something to buy, whether needed or not, to keep his same budget in tact for the next fiscal year.

b. Kepp the taxpayer money in the bank and watch his budget be reduced by the amount he didn't use in the previous fiscal year.

In the end he bought dozens of expensive laptop computers and put them in storage for two years. Then, once they were essentially useless, he gave them to lower ranking staff members.

Having heard his side of the story I understand why he did it. He didn't want to but the law is such that the money would be gone for good if not used.

That's a broken system.




Now look at Foley. We had a child predator running around congress. Many people knew inappropriate internet exchanges were taking place going back as far as three years and NOBODY looked into it.

Thats a broken system.




In 2000 over 100,000 people were denied the opportunity to vote because a company called Seisint (now part of LexisNexis) created and used a bad algorythm to disqualify large swaths of people from the election.

That's a broken system.



In many districts throughout the US we're using Diebold voting machines that can, with the flip of a switch, rig an election without detection.

That's a broken system.



I'm in my late 30s and have paid into the Social Security pot since I was 15. By the time I retire that fund will likely be bankrupt and I'll never see a dime that I put into it.

That is a broken system.


I could go on for days...

[art_director]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Hastert denied any knowledge of any emails at first, and has since acknowledged they knew. These people are lying. The boy described Foley's exchanges with him as "sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick" (I think that's 13 times). They didn't do anything about it. They told the Republican campaign committee, and Foley saw no consequences, and continued to be the lead Republican on child sex issues. They knew a helluva lot more than that he was "nice to underlings."

Yep, the entire thing was a cover-up and there will be hell to pay. Now the question is whether the Republicans will do the right thing or if voters will punish them for not doing so.

As for Foley, he's a whack job. Or is that what he was trying to get?

[marden]

Originally Posted by art_director

I would guess that both sides of the aisle are hiding their own. This is precisely the reason I believe we need a new government. Our courts are corrupt, our leaders are corrupt and our system works as well as a car that lost three wheels. If we're the shining example of democracy then I think we've demonstrated that that system eventually falls apart.

Try again.

This shows the system WORKS in spite of imperfect humans who operate within it.

If he had never been found out that would mean the system was not working well.

That's why Hastert should resign. The system would have worked if he had done his job. If he continues on that will encourage people to mistrust the system.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by marden

This shows the system WORKS in spite of imperfect humans who operate within it.

I tend to agree with this point of view. Still, I wouldn't mind seeing some 'house cleaning' in Congress

[art_director]

Originally Posted by marden

Try again.

This shows the system WORKS in spite of imperfect humans who operate within it.

If he had never been found out that would mean the system was not working well.

That's why Hastert should resign. The system would have worked if he had done his job. If he continues on that will encourage people to mistrust the system.

Fair enough, it came out. But how many more children did Foley approach in the three years it took for this to come into the light? I doubt we'll ever know.

There had best be more heads rolling over this. If, in corporate America, such an event took place you can bet the federal government would be breaking down doors to lock people up. Now that it's in their yard things are moving very s-l-o-w-l-y.

Has the FBI even seized Foley's computers? (BTW, he uses a Mac as suggested by his spending record @ the Apple Store.)

[davesimondotcom]

Some facts we need to know and distinguish:

* The "emails" were fairly innocuous, so someone who had them and didn't do anything would have just been giving a colleague the benefit of the doubt. The worst he said in them was to ask for a photo of one of the pages.

* Even some newspapers had the emails months ago, and nothing was published.

* The "IMs" are where the really disturbing things lie. And, so far, nobody can say that anyone knew before Friday.

* If anyone knew about the IMs and kept them hidden, they should be resigning office, at the very least. Very possibly could be charged with conspiracy or something, too.

* If, as art_director pointed out, Foley is a Mac man, I hope he wasn't using Adium.