Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I heard the age of consent in DC is 16. 795592[/snapback] The age of consent is 16 in DC. It's 18 in Florida, so if he sent even one email from Florida, he's rightfully !@#$ed. But by federal law, it's 16 (Title 19, Section 109A) unless you're soliciting via the internet, in which case it's 18 (HR 4472), and you have to go into the federal sex offenders registry. The federal law in this case is SO stupid, I can't even begin to explain it. Basically, Foley's violating federal law by emailing the pages, but had he actually molested them...well, that would have been legal, but he still has to admit to the federal government that he commited a crime, even though he didn't. That's probably why the FBI is still "investigating" Foley but hasn't arrested him yet: no one can figure out if what he did was actually a crime or not. The applicable federal law is !@#$ed up beyond belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Nozzlenut Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 We should use my $.10 solution on this pedophile...A round between the eyes will save the US taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in prosecuting and imprisoning this rump ranger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 This message is several years old and was uncovered by CNN today. It looks like a poster here could be involved as a former Congressional page: Maf54- What r ur plans this summer? What do you like to do? ichewcrayollaz- Not much. Goin to a cookout this weekend... Maf54- Cool. U like to BBQ? ichewcrayollaz- Of course... Maf54- Do you like hotdogs? ichewcrayollaz- i don't know anyone who doesn't!!! Why do u? Maf54- I love them! Not cooked though... ichewcrayollaz- what do u mean? Maf54- I'd like to take a wet hotdog and slap it around on your face. Would u like that? ichewcrayollaz- well, I did say I like hotdogs.... Maf54- What other meats do you like? You can imagine where it goes from here. That probably explains some things... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 This message is several years old and was uncovered by CNN today. It looks like a poster here could be involved as a former Congressional page:You can imagine where it goes from here. That probably explains some things... 795611[/snapback] Later in the transcript they start talking about hamsters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 "Little boy"? Sixteen year olds may be minors*, but they are NOT "little boys".*And in this case, the stupid-ass conflicting federal statues aren't even clear that 16 year olds ARE minors. 795274[/snapback] Compared to Foley, he is a little boy. Sixteen from my view point is not an age that you want to be hit on by some egotistical douche who is only interested in talking about the size of your penis. Little boys is not the rigt term, but it was late last night. Little boys does make it sound like the Michael Jackson case, and this is clearly not something of that nature, but it is almost as !@#$ up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 I hear Foley started out Hitting Mailboxes with baseball bats. Ah, the road to Perdition... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 I hear Foley started out Hitting Mailboxes with baseball bats. Ah, the road to Perdition... 795750[/snapback] LOL. @$$hole. But seriously, don't call me a pediphile ever again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 I have no way of knowing whether the Dems knew about this or not, but in the four days since this story has broken I have not seen a single news article from a reputible news source claiming or showing evidence that the Dems knew anything. There is an editorial (with no author named ) in Investors.com, but it seems the unknown author's only evidence that the Dems orchestrated this "october surprise" is that the Dems had the audacity to call for an investigation and to question who in the GOP leadership knew about it. Perhaps in the coming days some evidence will come to light that the Dems knew, but as of this post, no one with actual journalist credentials has seen any and all the speculation about this october surprize is coming from the GOP noise monkeys. 793940[/snapback] Accordig to Kathryn Harris, after expressing her repulsion to what Foley did, the most important thing for "us" to do, is to figure out which Democrats knew about this, so we can make sure that children are not being used as political pawns...this lady is amazing! How anyone here, or anywhere, can still hold to the myth that one of these parties is less sleazy or corrupt than the other is way beyond me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 How anyone here, or anywhere, can still hold to the myth that one of these parties is less sleazy or corrupt than the other is way beyond me... 796631[/snapback] I know. I will say, the guy in my Congressional district - Steve Chabot, is an extreme rare exception. He gets bashed by the opposition and the GOP leadership because he won't vote for local pork if it makes no sense, shows up on one of the local AM morning stations every other week and answers any and all questions. I don't think he's ever missed a vote, and shows up at the 2 AM session to vote against Congressional raises. Lives in a 2,000 sq ft hovel. What rare bird... Ugly guy with a comb-over, as it turns out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Accordig to Kathryn Harris, after expressing her repulsion to what Foley did, the most important thing for "us" to do, is to figure out which Democrats knew about this, so we can make sure that children are not being used as political pawns...this lady is amazing! How anyone here, or anywhere, can still hold to the myth that one of these parties is less sleazy or corrupt than the other is way beyond me... 796631[/snapback] I'll be voting for Nelson. And I'm a registered Republican. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Accordig to Kathryn Harris, after expressing her repulsion to what Foley did, the most important thing for "us" to do, is to figure out which Democrats knew about this, so we can make sure that children are not being used as political pawns...this lady is amazing! How anyone here, or anywhere, can still hold to the myth that one of these parties is less sleazy or corrupt than the other is way beyond me... 796631[/snapback] That is just !@#$ing amazing doubletalk. I mean, really, it's artwork. You almost don't catch that she wants to exploit the pages herself to ensure they're not being exploited by the Democrats. Absolutely brilliant. Totally disgusting...but I can't help but admire the subtlety of the paradoxical hypothetical syllogism... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 So it's too late to change the ballots w/ Foley's name, so the latest boondoggle from the Big Two is that a vote for Foley in the booth magically becomes a vote for Joe Negron. There will be signs in the voting places saying as much. Which.... in my purview violates the electioneering w/in 100 feet, but whatever. I'd do harikari before I put a check mark next to a pedophile's name on the ballot. This is shameful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 This is truly disgusting, i can't believe that Foley would be going after 16 year old boys like that. I hope he gets the book thrown at him instead a pardon from Pres. Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 This is truly disgusting, i can't believe that Foley would be going after 16 year old boys like that. I hope he gets the book thrown at him instead a pardon from Pres. Bush. 797017[/snapback] Will someone please point me to this "book" that's supposed to be thrown at him. Because "thou shalt not hit on 16 year old boys" isn't written into DC statutes, federal statutes, or even the Congressional ethics manual. It is in Florida law...but I haven't yet seen where FL has jurisdiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Will someone please point me to this "book" that's supposed to be thrown at him. Because "thou shalt not hit on 16 year old boys" isn't written into DC statutes, federal statutes, or even the Congressional ethics manual. It is in Florida law...but I haven't yet seen where FL has jurisdiction. 797109[/snapback] if there are no laws against it, then at least he is blackballed forever. and it serves him right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 6, 2006 Author Share Posted October 6, 2006 So it's too late to change the ballots w/ Foley's name, so the latest boondoggle from the Big Two is that a vote for Foley in the booth magically becomes a vote for Joe Negron. There will be signs in the voting places saying as much. Which.... in my purview violates the electioneering w/in 100 feet, but whatever. I'd do harikari before I put a check mark next to a pedophile's name on the ballot. This is shameful. 796962[/snapback] I doubt it. Thats not a smart political move to put signs up which draw attention to the Foley scandal, it would hurt Charlie Crist, Katherine Harris, (not that the Republican party cares about her) and any Republican candidate on the ballot not named Negron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Will someone please point me to this "book" that's supposed to be thrown at him. Because "thou shalt not hit on 16 year old boys" isn't written into DC statutes, federal statutes, or even the Congressional ethics manual. It is in Florida law...but I haven't yet seen where FL has jurisdiction. 797109[/snapback] Which brings up the obvious question of just how many pages do you need for a book? It has to be more than three or four. Looks to me like they may be throwing the pamphlet at him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Which brings up the obvious question of just how many pages do you need for a book? It has to be more than three or four. Looks to me like they may be throwing the pamphlet at him. 797193[/snapback] Actually, at this point it looks like they're throwing the book at Hastert, for not following the non-existent procedures not outlined for dealing with this situation. How many people really believe this is about the safety and well-being of 16-year old Congressional pages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger in Paradise Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Actually, at this point it looks like they're throwing the book at Hastert, for not following the non-existent procedures not outlined for dealing with this situation. How many people really believe this is about the safety and well-being of 16-year old Congressional pages? 797366[/snapback] I would be willing to bet most people don't think it is about the safety and well being of 16 year old pages. It is about the weasel that tried to take advantage of his position when dealing with 16 year old pages. It is about the people that may have been aware of this activity, yet did nothing to stop it, or get rid of Foley when they initially were made aware of it. Of course it is not about the safety and well being of 16 MALE pages. That has already been compromised, and as far as Mr. Foley is concerned, is non existent. Good thing he is gone,maybe he will find a more age appropriate target f his desires in his "treatment center". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 I haven't really been following this feverishly, although I have read a lot of articles on it, and seen several TV reports and interviews. One thing that I haven't seen spoken about is, what if Tom Foley was a heterosexual man, and the 16-17 year-olds were female pages. And the emails that he sent, and IMs that he sent were exactly the same, except toward the opposite sex. IMO, if Hastert was alerted to these emails sent by a Congressman to a 16 year-old girl, he would have done what he did. Tell Foley to cut it out. That it's totally inappropriate behavior. And that it's borderline sick. You just do not do something like that. I may expect him to look into it a little closer, in case Foley was doing something really bad, like meeting them outside of a professional situation. But I wouldn't expect him, however, to go to the other party. I wouldn't expect him to go to the press or FBI. I would just expect him to be alarmed, and creeped out a little even though there wasn't any blatant sexual stuff in those emails. So I really don't know what all the furor is. Once the IMs came out, which were a whole different animal, I would expect him to be totally disgusted and think this guy was a sexual predataor after 16 year old girls which is something to get his ass kicked over, if not investigated. Which, again, is exactly what happened. I have changed my mind a couple times on this, because I think it is one of those things were there isn't really a clear answer and isn't a no brainer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts