As someone who couldn't care less who is sleeping with or seducing whom), I'm gonna go out on a limb here. If the "object of affection" was a consenting adult of 18 at the time and was a willing participant (which he appears to be, given he responded and didn't block Foley), then...
Can we please quit calling Foley a pedophilic scumbag? That's just downright homophobic and insulting to the gay community.
Can we please quit calling Foley a pedophilic scumbag? That's just downright homophobic and insulting to the gay community.
It's also insulting to reason and common sense. For instance, the "hang-em-high" rhetoric - even when it is pointed out that the person in question might have been 18, then the objection is raised - "But he was only 18 for 2 months!" "He was *almost* seventeen!" (Not to mention that the age of consent in many jurisdictions is 16, not 18 anyway. But "underage" is being used synonymously with "beneath the AOC." Shows you how influential the MSM really is.)
For that matter, how do we even know that the person *supposed to be* Foley actually is? How many people in their fifties are really able to get "chatroom lingo" down like that? I've said it on other threads, I'll say it again - it is very easy to fake IM transcripts - they're simply HTML files. The sad thing is that if this *is* another "TypewriterGate," it's one that many Republicans are willing to believe as well.