Posted on 10/02/2006 1:27:37 PM PDT by areafiftyone
I also want to know why the heck the two different age requirements. Boy, does that stink to high Heaven.
Why didn't Matthew speak out sooner?
-PJ
AS THE PAGE TURNS!
Senators like them younger.
I'm at the point of wanting the whole lot of them thrown out.
Check this out.
LOL
So far, so good.:)
I'm beginning to think this was orchestrated by the page that claimed to be warned about Foley in the first place.
Maybe it isn't something that is meant to be mean, but to teach the Rep who championed harsh punishment for internet predators a lesson about how easy it is to fake evidence that would convict someone under the new laws.
He could simply use the same techniques as the marketing groups use to generate internet buzz. Post anonymously in blogs and internet forums. Create rumors, create blogs specifically for the purpose of generating buzz. It could look like you're 10 or 100 people but really you are just one guy with a lot of different accounts.
From here on out, I hope everyone who speaks is put under oath. Foley is in rehab for alcoholism. Seems it's either alcohol, "prescription" drugs or bi polar.
We need to stop electing people with those problems.
I agree.
Essentially, the only thing that is being disputed is whether the pages were warned or not.
There appears to be no dispute over the fact that Foley sent sexually explicit messages to the page in question. What he did remains inappropriate and disgusting (to say the least).
Amen. And supporting parties that aid and abet them.
Just saw it.
This cracked me and my daughter up:
"What Jimmy didn't know was that Ralph was sick .... You see, Ralph was a ho-mo-sexual."
That was hilarious!
I thought you may have had a sense of something "off" in the comments of Loraditch so I thought you would be interested in this retraction.
Doesn't it say that "the Page" in question wasn't a page when he was contacted by Foley?
Let's follow this logically if this happened three years ago and after this young man was a page, and the young man in question is 22 years old today, he had to be nineteen when it happened?
The Sixteen year old number comes from when he was allowed to be a page, not when he stopped being a page but when he could become a page.
The lie here is one of omission, the media isn't telling us how old he was when he recieved the "IMs" or the e-mails, only that pages start at 16 years old.
Although this seems to clear up the question of whether the IMs were sent to a person while they were a page or not -- it looks like the IMs were sent to a person who had completed serving as a page.
Which means it's back to being an old gay guy hitting on a young man -- For all we know, the young man was actually 18 at the time.
Still glad he's gone, but it's hard to see how the republicans could be expected to "punish" someone for IMs they didn't know about sent to people who were not working for the House and who did not complain to anybody.
There's a whole host of incumbents I suspect are alcoholic, dishonest, lazy and too power hungry to be in office, but voters continue to reelect these people even after their problems or shady dealings have been exposed.
Patrick Kennedy will undoubtedly be reelected, and Duke Cunningham won reelection several times after scandals had emerged about him. It took a trial and a conviction to get him out of office and I liked him, but knew he was a heavy drinker for many years even though I didn't live in his district.
It seems a conviction is necessary to get them out of ooice. I can cite others too --- Dan Rostenkowski; Jim (beam me up Scotty) with the long surname, and the congressman from IL who messed with a teenage firl. There's others.
We have too many flawed people holding elected office.
The media preys on public ignorance by using innuendo and incomplete reporting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.