Replies

If the ex-page was legal age, it changes the story.

Not one whit.

83 posted on 10/04/2006 4:31:11 PM PDT by eddie willers

To: eddie willers

Oh, come on. At least ONE whit?

84 posted on 10/04/2006 4:31:51 PM PDT by TheConservator (Confutatis maledictis flammis acribus addictis. . . .)

To: eddie willers

It certainly does matter. There is a difference between being called a homosexual and being called a pedophile.

90 posted on 10/04/2006 4:36:26 PM PDT by HelloooClareece ("We make war that we may live in peace". Aristotle)

To: eddie willers

If the ex-page was legal age, it changes the story.

Not one whit.

Denying reality a little? The MSM's spin has been Foley was preying upon young, underage congressional pages and had 'cybersex' with the same. If the ex-page was 18+, there would seemingly be no crime.

D.C.'s age of consent is 16, the same as page's minimum age. There was no actual sex. He was a page a year before the IMs and now was apparently 18, a clearly legal adult, at the time of the IMs.

Hastert only knew of an emails asking for a photo, how an ex-page weathered a hurricane and other things. No news organization felt the emails warranted any coverage and they knew of them years ago. Foley was disciplined. Now with the IMs having been revealed, Foley was gone immediately.

What don't I know?

131 posted on 10/04/2006 5:04:55 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Support Arnold-McClintock or embrace high taxes, gay weddings with Angelides.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794