Posted on 09/29/2006 12:01:58 PM PDT by Lunatic Fringe
Just breaking on CNN
Isn't that weird? There is justice in the world and irony makes it moreso. Like "Measure for Measure." Foley couldn't say that he didn't know cybersex WAS a crime, that's for sure.
Damn good question.
The GOP House Whip was just on television saying he wished Foley "the very best." No expression of dismay or outrage or concern for the young innocents who may have been molested..
Yeah, who do they REALLY care about? It's a cushy little insider club. Recall that earlier this year, when the Feds raided the office of the corrupt Dem LA rep, Dennis Hastert ran to his defense? Shame on them..
I didn't say that. What I SAID, REPEATEDLY, is that the fact that most people are not gay does not mean that he can't represent them.
If you want to argue that homosexuality shows an exceptionally warped frame of mind, and thus, they should not be elected to congress, then we have an actual discussion.
I tend to disagree on a whole, but I am not completely unsympathetic to that point, (I don't think people that flaunt their sexuality and use their office as a platform to advance their own lifestyle, should serve if office) and it's a reasonable point.
But arguing that gay people shouldn't be elected simply because most of their constituents aren't gay is stupid. There may be reasons not to elect gay people, that isn't one of them.
Well pal, that's EXACTLY why this country is now well and truly f**ked up. Of COURSE we should be electing people who feel and believe as we, the overWHELMING majority of their constituents, believe.
Umm, that has what to do with what I said?
If you want to say that the overwhelming majority of people think that gay people shouldn't be elected to congress, you're flat out wrong. Perhaps they are wrong, but they don't believe that.
Most don't favor gay marriage, but that doesn't mean that they think they should automatically be written off for high office.
Don't even attempt your absurd "moral/sexual equivalency" argument of homosexuality vs. heterosexual couples' sexual escapades.
I'll attempt whatever I please. However, I didn't do that. AGAIN, you fail to understand: there is a difference between saying something should disqualify someone from serving in office because of what it is, and saying something should disqualify someone for office because most of their constituents don't share the same tastes.
To deny that gays in this country have become militant, have outright taken over Hollywood and large portions of the entertainment industry directly catering to our kids, that they have managed to convince the weak-minded and rudderless (you know........people like you) that "gee golly it's all ok; we're swell and normal and you should like us and BE like us or be labeled a homophobe"...is either a sick joke or an indication of just how asleep you have been the last 20 years.
I don't deny that a certain section of the gay population is 'militant', nor do I deny that many of them hold goals and have ideas that are not my own.
But hate-filled rants like this don't hurt them and make you a lesser person.
Homosexuals haven't taken over Hollywood any more then Jews have taken over the Banking Industry. Sure, there is a higher percentage of gays in Hollywood then in the general population, but that doesn't mean they've 'taken over' anything. Same for Jews in banking, or Hollywood, or whatever other industry they are accused of taking over.
I'm going to stop now. You're just flat out pissing me off.
I'll consider this a complement.
What the hell is he suppose to do? Wish him the worst? Maybe if he were found guilty of something, I might even agree if he were indicted.
But just because he resigned, you think that he should accept every accusation as truth and wish him a long time in the slammer?
Rediculous. I think the allegations ARE true, but nobody knows for sure yet, and he shouldn't assume otherwise. He did the absolutely proper thing for the situation and I complement him on it.
It would be nice if Jeb was designated the nominee. He could hold the seat for the Republicans, and he only has about 5 more weeks in office. I think he would do a great job in the House too.
It may be that they are so driven for the "thrill" that they will risk everything. That's why people like that should not be in responsible positions. They are inherently reckless. There may be some, not Foley it would seem, who have a will of iron that can control their fantasies. It has long been known that Foley was "unconventional" for lack of a better term. But voters kept him in office. There is no telling what is behind all of this, but if he were Democrat he could have stayed put.
You are right, some young ones have already been corrupted by this world and the evils that lurk in it.
That said, I'm sure you wouldn't condone (sexual) communication for immoral purposes with a minor (e.g. a 16 YO) now would you? And NO I'm not assuming anything (physical contact) about this case except the moral corruption that is obvious. The law doesn't distinguish whether it happens on the phone, in person or via cyberspace. The real issue is whether it is believed to be wrong. It is, and evil, and despicable.
OK, nonsuit it is. Foley only hit on those 16 years or older. He obviously knows his own statute better than I do.
In 1980, a MD Republican named "Bauman" (not sure of spelling) did something very similar to this. He resigned and did later turn Democrat but no longer in politics.
If you think peverts like Rep. Foley who have already accepted culpabilty (by his resignation) from the US Congress should be "wished well" without being castigated and ridiculed then "buzz off." He is a scum bag for having immoral communications with an under age boy. Got it? If you don't think there is anything wrong with what he did, you are no better than him.
According to Nightline, they've know for quite a while; they had a guy on who use to be a page and he said that when they first came in to training, they were WARNED about Foley.
This is going to be ugly.
How can anyone in politics be this stupid?
You don't know that. That is what he is 'accused' of. If he's guilty, of course, he should be condemned, and I suspect he is guilty, and if that proves to be true, people should make their thoughts on it known, Majority Whip Blunt included.
But until it is proven, i.e: until he confesses, is found guilty, or at the very least, a lot more is known then is currently known, it would be totally out of line for Blunt to assume he's guilty and condemn him.
Then it should be. Just like in the Catholic abuse scandals, let the light of truth be known in these cases and let the chips fall where they may. We cannot tolerate a "Clinton morality standard" at the highest levels of our government.
The ethical and moral corruption in this case may cause a lot of folks to realize that higher standards are needed, including in the Republican party.
And therein resides the most important issue.
Resignation does not equal accepting culpability. When he pleads guilty to criminal charges (if they're ever made) or when he comes out and admits that he did these things, then that's accepting culpability.
And if you think dog was saying there was nothing wrong with what he did, then you missed his point entirely. His point wasn't that sexual communication with a minor isn't bad. His point was that he wasn't convinced yet that all of these allegations are true.
OK pal, you be his apologist. And prepare to live with the results of your viewpoints. Maybe you should read the texts of his five (so-far) emails. Tell me he isn't a pevert. Get lost.
When was that?
Ugh, this all just makes me sick.
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.