Posted on 10/04/2006 1:58:14 PM PDT by Gribbit
Added to Drudge headline...........
ABC RELEASED TRANSCRIPT OF CHAT BETWEEN FOLEY AND A MAN WHO WAS 18 AT THE TIME OF THE INSTANT MESSAGE EXCHANGE.... NETWORK GAVE IMPRESSION MESSAGE WAS TO 'UNDER AGE' TEEN... DEVELOPING...
http://drudgereport.com/
Foley is a sick dirt-bag regardless. But the charges are against the "party in power" for not protecting America's kids. If it turns out that the kid was of legal age, and not even a page at the time of the engagement, then there was probably nothing anyone could have done to stop this behavior. Actually, doing so would be regarded as interfering with the private affairs of two loving men. That was Gerry Studd's defense, even though the page was underage.
I suspect we'd find a lot of things "wrong" if we knew of the private sex lives, internet or otherwise, of our elected officials.
I still don't understand why a straight teenager would have put up with Foley for more than one inappropriate message. There may be a great explanation, I just don't know what it is.
While I know FReepers are really going after the MSM/Dems on this issue we do need to make it abundantly clear that we do not condone Foley's behavior in the least and are happy to see him go. We're just angry at yet another liberal ploy to fool the American people with false reporting (ie using the 'underage' hammer, calling for Hastert's head etc), particularly given they may have had this stuff for quite a while (plenty of time to verify dates etc).
At least a Whit. (politically, not gross-out factorly)
Well said, I agree with you 100%.
What doesn't jive? Republicans are all straight?
'Added to Drudge headline.....'
Drudge rules, N'est-ce pas?
It is still sick, but it isn't even illegal to use the internet as a 50 yr old to chat with an 18 year old and even meet the 18 year old to have sex. I don't think there is a huge difference between 18 and 16 but I still don't want 16 year olds meeting 50 year olds online and meeting for sex at 18 they have the legal right to do it if they want to.
The MSM will drop this story as fast as they dropped the Plamegate story when Armitage spoke up.
If they continue with the story they run the risk of exposing some Dems.
So was I and here is where we differ in opinion and I may very well be wrong....but I believe that most people, over 40, think a 52 year old man hitting on an 18 year old is no different than a 16 year old.
And people over 40 vote!
The only think we can do is stress that IMs are different than Emails and that we did the right thing at the right time.
Anything else just keeps it in the news
US House of Representatives
Washington, DC US
House Page
Office of the Clerk
September 2001- June 2002
What I do not understand is why the kid did not use the ignore button? To me this sounds like some kind of set up
I'm over 40. There's a HUGE difference.
The timing.
That Berkely political science students are Republican.
Also I'm sure that the kid was a victim. It sounds more like Foley was the victim of a bad joke, the kid made a fool of him, and roped him into a sting. Not that he didn't deserve, but the kid doesn't need protection either.
Gerry Studds got a standing ovation from the Dems. His Masshole constituents reelected him to five more terms. His page interaction was (a) genuinely underage (the page was 17) and (b) physically consummated, not limited to salacious messages. He and his lovely bride, Dean T. Hara, were married in the first week of gay marriage availability in Massachusetts.
Democrat attacks on Mark Foley amount to gay bashing. Gay bashing is a mortal sin in the Church of Liberalism. They should be ashamed!
And gay-bashing.
Good point.
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.