[nj26]

When a 50yo gay man starts asking a 16yo boy for a picture, anybody with common sense would start asking some difficult questions.

If those questions weren't asked, it was either stupidity or corruption.

I think Hastert needs to resign, and Foley belongs in prison.

[Dane]

Haster had no knowledge of the IM's, but you do your usual kneejerk dance.

[tobyhill]

I wish there was a law that would put Foley behind bars but unless there was porn involved or the authorities can prove he had at least sexual intentions then he's not going to jail. Dirty talk is just that, dirty talk and is protected as free speech. The parents could have very easily become parents and either took the kids communication devises or had the kid change all his e-mail addresses so as the perv would leave him alone. Know what your kids are doing all the time and it definitely helps keep the pervs away.

[plain talk]

I think you are blowing this out of proportion. Hastert shouldn't resign and did exactly the right thing.

[JRochelle]

You seem to ignore the real FACTS.

Hastert handled it as best he could.
The boy who received the explicit IM's is a different boy.

[frannie]

There was no contact, from what I understand. Also Folley didn't use his name just his initials. He most likely knew who the boy was.

[dr_who_2]

If the family of the boy wants it stopped too and the word "inappropriate" is used, there is no excuse for the approach these idiots took. In the end it's just the same old-same old.

[codercpc]

I have read your posts on many of these threads, and your underlining point seems to be "He is a homosexual so he must be wrong". IMO, if this was any other Congressman, in these exact same position, only they were heterosexuals emailing a 16 year old girl asking nothing sexual (birthday wish, picture, how she survived the hurricane) you would not be in such a tizzy. You seem to be hung up on the homosexual content.

It has been pointed out to you, on multiple occasions, that parents of this child were uncomfortable with the messages, but DID NOT want it pursued with the exception of asking Foley to stop contacting their son. The sexually explicit IM's were from 2003 (two years before this incident), and were not known about until Thursday. You still say that "he was gay, so he should have been kicked out". Not all homosexuals are teenage predators, and not all teenage predators are homosexuals. Take the sexuality out of the equation, and step back. If you were in the same situation, last year, as Hastert, and you had no other complaints, either before or after, what more could have been done? As soon as the sexually explicit IM's were discovered, he resigned. They are now investigating. What more do you want.

PLEASE REMEMBER, THESE WERE DIFFERENT INCIDENTS they were not the same child, they were not connected until this past week.