Live&DieBillsFootball Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 And the award for the most stupid weasel goes to Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah. Cannon: Teens "egging on" Foley in online sex scandal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 And the award for the most stupid weasel goes to Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah. Cannon: Teens "egging on" Foley in online sex scandal 797456[/snapback] Actually, there have been reports that the pages were basically messing with Foley...basically trying to see how lewd and perverted they could get him to act. Which doesn't excuse Foley, of course...he's still a cretin. And this story's hit the point where people usually start coming out of the woodwork with weird, unsubstantiated stories anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 Actually, there have been reports that the pages were basically messing with Foley...basically trying to see how lewd and perverted they could get him to act. Which doesn't excuse Foley, of course...he's still a cretin. And this story's hit the point where people usually start coming out of the woodwork with weird, unsubstantiated stories anyway. 797509[/snapback] From an interview with Stephen Jones, attorney for the page, in the Daily Oklahoman: The attorney disputed as “a piece of fiction” a report on a widely viewed Internet site, The Drudge Report, that Edmund’s exchanges with Foley were a prank by the page. Jones said, “There is not any aspect of this matter that is a practical joke nor should anyone treat it that way.” Look's like the report that says that it was the kid's fault was a lie. So far, the Repugs have blamed everyone from Bill Clinton to George Soros to the kid himself for the scandal. I think the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny will be the next to be blamed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 Might be disgusting, but might not be a crime. I have heard several versions , so I don't know what is correct. I heard that the page was 18 and I heard that the page was 16. If it is the former, it is two adults. If the latter, I have heard that the age of consent is 16 in DC. Besides, there was no sex as far as we have been told. Then it would be a case of sexual harasment, but as the case with Bubba and Monica, it's just sex, so what's the problem. I'm not saying I condone it, but there might not be too much there and it is being trumped up by the DNC press department (AKA ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN). Suspicious that it came out on the last day of the session. How long did the press sit on this? I have heard 6 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 Might be disgusting, but might not be a crime. I have heard several versions , so I don't know what is correct. I heard that the page was 18 and I heard that the page was 16. If it is the former, it is two adults. If the latter, I have heard that the age of consent is 16 in DC. Besides, there was no sex as far as we have been told.Then it would be a case of sexual harasment, but as the case with Bubba and Monica, it's just sex, so what's the problem. I'm not saying I condone it, but there might not be too much there and it is being trumped up by the DNC press department (AKA ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN). Suspicious that it came out on the last day of the session. How long did the press sit on this? I have heard 6 months. 797604[/snapback] Maybe we should ask Rep Foley if it was a crime since he was the one who pushed through the bill to make internet sex chats with minors illegal. How long did the GOP leadership sit on it? Sounds like they have known about Foley's interest in little boys for several years. But thanks for chiming in and letting us know Rush's spin on things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 Maybe we should ask Rep Foley if it was a crime since he was the one who pushed through the bill to make internet sex chats with minors illegal. 797634[/snapback] Have you read the bill? It's HR 4472. The applicable federal criminal code is Title 18 Chapter 109A. If you can tell me unequivocably that what he did was illegal...that would make you more knowledgable than most of the lawyers I discussed it with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 7, 2006 Author Share Posted October 7, 2006 Actually, there have been reports that the pages were basically messing with Foley...basically trying to see how lewd and perverted they could get him to act. Which doesn't excuse Foley, of course...he's still a cretin. And this story's hit the point where people usually start coming out of the woodwork with weird, unsubstantiated stories anyway. 797509[/snapback] Know that old saying that every joke has a piece of truth in it? Well, even if it *was* a prank, Foley had to have shown signs that he would be willing and able to be rather perverted for the kids to even think of egging him on. Most 16 year old boys wouldn't be sitting there going, "hmm, I wonder if Congressman Foley likes boys around my age, lemme measure my penis and see what he says" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 Know that old saying that every joke has a piece of truth in it? Well, even if it *was* a prank, Foley had to have shown signs that he would be willing and able to be rather perverted for the kids to even think of egging him on. Most 16 year old boys wouldn't be sitting there going, "hmm, I wonder if Congressman Foley likes boys around my age, lemme measure my penis and see what he says" 797752[/snapback] Did I say it excused Foley's actions? Even if it were some sort of prank, it would still be highly likely that Foley initiated it. I can't see Congressional pages sitting around saying "Hey, let's send suggestive emails to Congressmen Foley, and see how he responds..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 7, 2006 Author Share Posted October 7, 2006 Have you read the bill? It's HR 4472. The applicable federal criminal code is Title 18 Chapter 109A. If you can tell me unequivocably that what he did was illegal...that would make you more knowledgable than most of the lawyers I discussed it with. 797747[/snapback] Does that bill even apply? All I saw under Title VII was to deal with webpages, which for all intents and purposes of this bill are semi-static communications. Whats the definition of a telephone solicitation of a minor? Would an IM be able to fall under that definition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 7, 2006 Author Share Posted October 7, 2006 Did I say it excused Foley's actions? Even if it were some sort of prank, it would still be highly likely that Foley initiated it. I can't see Congressional pages sitting around saying "Hey, let's send suggestive emails to Congressmen Foley, and see how he responds..." 797760[/snapback] I wasn't attacking you, I was actually agreeing with you. Though reading it again I could have worded it better then to start with a question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 I'm no lawyer, but if the age of consent is 16 in DC, can someone pork a 16 year old with no legal problems, but get locked up for sending them dirty e-mails? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 He sent some of the nasty IMs when he was in Pensacola. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 Have you read the bill? It's HR 4472. The applicable federal criminal code is Title 18 Chapter 109A. If you can tell me unequivocably that what he did was illegal...that would make you more knowledgable than most of the lawyers I discussed it with. 797747[/snapback] I have no idea if what he did was illegal, but as co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus don't you think he should have known what constitutes inappropriate behavior? Legislating, Rep. Foley told National Public Radio on June 29, "is not necessarily just trying to brand people or create a scarlet letter or subject them to unnecessary ridicule, but it's really to set a bar and a standard by which they then decide, 'I better get help professionally,' 'I better go and see how I can deal with this problem,' or, 'I should absolutely avoid contact with young people in order to ensure I don't fall into this very serious problem.' " Too bad he couldn't identify it himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 He sent some of the nasty IMs when he was in Pensacola. 797822[/snapback] And i am Eric Moulds' illigitemate child. As the world turns on TBD ehh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 Does that bill even apply? All I saw under Title VII was to deal with webpages, which for all intents and purposes of this bill are semi-static communications. Whats the definition of a telephone solicitation of a minor? Would an IM be able to fall under that definition? 797764[/snapback] IM falls under interstate commerce, being as it's over the internet. That's the gist of 4472...and for interstate commerce (i.e. as defined in 4472) purposes, "minor" is defined as "under 18". 109A, however, is the federal statutes dealing with sexual abuse...which sets the age of consent at 16 and over. So under federal law, you can - with consent - !@#$ a 16 year old Congressional page up the ass if you want, but you can't send dirty emails. It is a truly stupid set of laws, made all the worse by the simplicity of writing them correctly. All they had to do was write in to 4472 wording akin to "Section blah-blah-blah of 109A is amended as follows: change "16" to "18". They do that in plenty of other places (raising the penalty for abusing a child from 10 to 15 or 20 years, for example). They just never bothered to make sure the definition of "minor" is consistent throughout the law. Divining the reasons why the law is so screwed up is left as an exercise to the reader...but here's a hint: consider which people wrote the !@#$ing law and why. But, as KTFABD said, Foley sent some of the IMs from Pensacola. And Florida law is clear: "minor" is "under 18". THAT makes at least some of them cut-and-dried illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 I have no idea if what he did was illegal, but as co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus don't you think he should have known what constitutes inappropriate behavior?Too bad he couldn't identify it himself. 797831[/snapback] Uhhh...yeah. I'm not defending Foley, I'm criticizing the idiots who are referencing laws they haven't even read. What Foley did is, as far as I can tell, not illegal under federal law (or at worst it's very arguable, given the screwed-up legislation). Should it be? Absolutely. As should a sexual harrassment policy be written into the House Ethics manual (yes, believe it or not, although every company in America with more than 20 employees has a written sexual harrassment policy that clearly defines what is and is not sexual harrassment and outlines the punishments for such...the House's "ethics" don't include one. ) Too bad most of the ass holes on the Hill are too busy playing partisan politics and chasing the issue du jour to be bothered to actually do their !@#$ing jobs. But then...ultimately, that's our fault. We elected these incompetent pricks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Doe's anyone else find it ironic that the Republican leadership is going to crash and burn for over tolerating a gay guy? Maybe if they had pushed for Gay Marriage, Foley would have married a young page and all of their dirty talk would have been in bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 8, 2006 Author Share Posted October 8, 2006 Doe's anyone else find it ironic that the Republican leadership is going to crash and burn for over tolerating a gay guy? Maybe if they had pushed for Gay Marriage, Foley would have married a young page and all of their dirty talk would have been in bed. 798285[/snapback] No, because he's a friggin pedo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 No, because he's a friggin pedo. 798319[/snapback] You assume. The guy sent IMs to 16 year-old boys. That's the only proven fact. I don't know this guy from the next congresscritter, but I DO know the only fact in this story is that he sent IMs to former pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 9, 2006 Author Share Posted October 9, 2006 You assume. The guy sent IMs to 16 year-old boys. That's the only proven fact. I don't know this guy from the next congresscritter, but I DO know the only fact in this story is that he sent IMs to former pages. 799839[/snapback] No I don't assume. I know that he asked a 16-year-old boy, that he *knew* was 16, to measure his dick, how he masturbated and blew his load, how often he masturbated, if he had a hardon, and other such things. What the hell would you call that if its not pedo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts