To: hstntxs
We have the high ground? Sigh...I am totally shocked that people don't get it. What else can be said...Foley needs to go to jail for all of this. Underage is underage. Who cares about this one kid being 18 during PART of all of this. He was under 18 at other parts of it.
I am sickened that people here are acting as if this somehow looks "better" for us.
It does not.
To: silentknight
To: silentknight
Foley resigned. He's history. If he commited a crime, yes, he should go to jail. Will he get a trial first?
1,970 posted on
10/05/2006 3:26:34 PM PDT by
Jrabbit
(Scuse me??)
To: silentknight
What else can be said...Foley needs to go to jail for all of this. Underage is underage. Who cares about this one kid being 18 during PART of all of this. He was under 18 at other parts of it.
Where is under 18 "illegal?" I know of no state that is true. It seems 16 is the LEGAL age of consent in most states were it is as young as 14 years in some.
People do not have to go to jail because they do something offensive to you, it has to actually be against the law.
1,980 posted on
10/05/2006 3:30:16 PM PDT by
msnimje
(Seriously, if it REALLY were a religion of PEACE, would they have to label it as such?)
To: silentknight
Sorry, the 18 year old was 18 years old the whole time. BTW, the whole thing could have been concocted much more recently you know, and he'd be 21.
To: silentknight
I like people who have priciples, and stick to them, instead of defending a letter after a name. Thanks for speaking up.
2,043 posted on
10/05/2006 3:54:43 PM PDT by
BykrBayb
(Be careful what you ask for, and even more careful what you demand. Þ)
To: silentknight
"We have the high ground? Sigh...I am totally shocked that people don't get it. What else can be said...Foley needs to go to jail for all of this. Underage is underage. Who cares about this one kid being 18 during PART of all of this. He was under 18 at other parts of it.
I am sickened that people here are acting as if this somehow looks "better" for us."
First: obligatory "I do not condone Foley's behavior"
So why do we need to allow the culture at large to shift the standard of morality at this time? As a freeper pointed out last evening, the person the dems sought to destroy could have gone to Massachusetts adz legally married the person he was IMing at the time of the salacious messages. What has happened to privacy and gay pride and gay rights and all that all of a sudden?
I am shocked and sickened to see so many posters even now still wishing to cave in to the demonic side of the democrat party with their accomplices in the media. Rathergate seems to have taught them all nothing. Did you all see the thread last evening about the website that existed for the sole purpose of leaking out (dribbling out) the content till it climaxed with the IM's of the 18 year old. But of course the whole story was so convoluted by then that no one knew or even thought to question whether or not THESE were the "emails" were the ones that the Rep. leadership was aware of. And now even though we do know they were not some freepers are saying we deserve to lose the House and Hastert should still resign, etc. etc. I for one feel that not an inch of ground should be given. Foley has resigned. Our party can argue that we are the party that gets rid of disgusting animals like Foley. The other party doesn't and tries to make us think we should all be disgusting animals supporting sodomy, abortion, and infanticide (partial-birth abortion). OPEN YOU EYES FREEPERS!
To: silentknight
He was under 18 at other parts of it.
Even if it is true that he or one of them was under 18 at the time of any "bad language", the age of consent in Washington DC is 16.
To: silentknight
Again, get the facts. The age of consent in DC is 16. 16. OK ? There was nothing illegal. Immoral, yes, but not illegal.
2,150 posted on
10/05/2006 4:38:38 PM PDT by
cinives
(On some planets what I do is considered normal.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson