The Foley email scandal [Archive]

JohnnyV

Oct 4, 2006, 9:22 AM

WARNING -- THIS THREAD INVOLVES SOME POLITICAL ISSUES! DO NOT READ IF YOU DONT LIKE POLITICS :)

Recently a Republican congressman from Florida stepped down because he was sending inappropriate email messages to 16-year-old boys who used to work for him (and in some cases his friends). The irony was all the greater because Foley, the man in question, was in charge of authoring legislation to protect minors from online predators.

I was wondering, though, if I am the only bi/gay person who doesn't think the backlash against Foley is justified. While I think the Republican position on gay marriage is awful, Foley signed on to laws to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination, and he has not, like other "closeted" conservative politicians, denied his sexuality or campaigned against gay marriage. This article is a good view on the whole thing:

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp10032006.html

I read the emails on the MSNBC site and they seemed like a 16-year-old boy being melodramatic and blowing things out of proportion, as teenagers will sometimes do. Most of the email chain was the young man forwarding the original message from Foley to his friends, adding more comments with each forward like "I'm so freaked out" and "sick!"

The instant messages, which were more explicit, seemed like they were largely a back-and-forth in which the younger men encouraged Foley to talk about erections and masturbation. In no case does it look like Foley slept or tried to seduce any of the kids physically.

So in a nutshell, I am sitting this one out and I'm not jumping on the liberals' bandwagon to take Foley down and turn the scandal into a victory for the Democrats. For once I wish people would drop the scandalmongering. The same week that Foley resigned, the Senate passed a bill removing habeas corpus for "enemy combatants", in effect rolling back a major clause of the Magna Carta from 1215. The fact that our laws are becoming medieval is more important to me than one old Republican asking a 16-year-old intern for a picture of himself.

J :)

matterinhand

Oct 4, 2006, 9:38 AM

I don't pretend to understand the Americal political system, I'm just responding because a naturist group I read had just had a thread about him being the person who objected to the nudist camps for children run by the Quakers.
If anyone knows more about this bit I'd be interested in reading it.
Thanks.

anne27

Oct 4, 2006, 9:40 AM

I am very much into GLBT rights and have written my local and state politicians several times blasting them on their narrow minded, right wing views on gay marriage.

BUT-

This man had inappropriate conversations with minors. That's wrong, plain and simple. His ass needed ousted. Period.

:2cents:

Michael623

Oct 4, 2006, 10:11 AM

My opinion of Foley is that he went a long way to justify the homophobic view that a homosexual person is a person who preys on children, that they are going to make our kids gay and/or rape them. To me, it is obvious he was after these boys sexually and should take responsibility for his actions and not play the "gay card". I think he did a lot of harm to the GLBT community.

JohnnyV

Oct 4, 2006, 10:43 AM

Another piece on this, regarding Foley's claims that he was abused by a clergy member as a youth:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15110591/from/RS.4/

littlerayofsunshine

Oct 4, 2006, 10:56 AM

Sorry to butt in. This man may have done a couple of good things in his life, but that doesn't constitute a good human being. From everything I have read and seen on the news, this man has the "everything and the kitchen sink" syndrome. IF one can't be responsible for his own actions, then he sure as hell shouldn't be responsible for thousands/millions of people. He may not have traumatized a child yet, but the way things are unfolding, More comes out, and then more excuses, Something perverse may be dug up soon, who knows. Others knew what he was doing, and did not stand up for the children or the laws they created to protect them. They are just as bad in my book.

smokey

Oct 4, 2006, 2:10 PM

The problem (or issue as the case may be) is the Republicans and especially the radicals in the house have positioned themselves as more American, more religious and more moral (among other things) than their so-called enemies, the liberals and Democrats. Based on this obnoxious hubris alone, I think that they should be held accountable to the misbehavior of their members. The fact that the leadership knew that Foley was a problem (several pages had been warned about him apparently) and knew several months to a year ago and did nothing about it (this type of thing has happened enough to be a habit...Tom Delay is a prime example) to protect their hold on power should tell the voters where their priorities actually are. And I am not saying this just because the are Republicans, I hold the Democrats to the same standard. The only difference is that the Democrats don't go around with a holier than thou chip on their shoulders.

The fact that Faux news knew about this and sat on it speaks volumes about their alliances (as if we didn't know) because if it had been a Democrat, they would have been shouting it to high heaven.

smokey

Oct 4, 2006, 2:14 PM

P.S. I don't buy the abused by a clergyman as a child excuse either. Its too pat. Passing the buck as it were to avoid responsiblilty for his own actions. Same thing about alcoholism. He may have been abused and he may be a drunk...he is still responsible for his own actions.

billy_campbell

Oct 4, 2006, 5:44 PM

He could have been gay, straight, or bisexual it doesn't matter what he did was not proper for any adult much less for a leader of our country. Children are off limits for adults. :2cents: :mad:

canuckotter

Oct 4, 2006, 6:45 PM

This man had inappropriate conversations with minors. That's wrong, plain and simple. His ass needed ousted. Period.

:2cents:
Agreed. Whatever else he's done in his life, he knew that the kid was a 16 year old, and should never have been involved in that kind of conversation in the first place. Even if the kid started it and egged him on, he should have stopped it immediately.

Of all people in the US, Foley should have known that.

Avocado

Oct 4, 2006, 6:48 PM

The age of consent in Britain is 16. I find it amazing that a 16 year old in America can't have a relationship but can own a gun.

LouiseBrookslover

Oct 4, 2006, 7:01 PM

Good point, Avocado. Let's all remember that 16 is an arbitrary number. I don't think what he did was necessarily morally offensive, for there is no real moral rulebook saying when someone is of the age of consent. Common sense would say someone is not of consent when they are not sexually mature, but after that, things get far murkier than most of us would like to believe. If, as a person of power, he was using that power over a powerless person to get sex....that would be morally wrong, in my opinion, but on the face of things no real immorality is present.

What isn't murky is the law. And it is pretty stupid for a lawmaker to break it so cavalierly. But breaking a law and being immoral aren't necessarily the same thing.

JohnnyV

Oct 4, 2006, 7:47 PM

A funny thing not totally related:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYRhVcJsypg

LouiseBrookslover

Oct 4, 2006, 7:51 PM

LOL Since we're posting youtube links, here is one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p-OnMGjcME

ambi53mm

Oct 4, 2006, 8:09 PM

In the bigger scheme of things...We reap what we sow...Foley is no exception
..Karmic justice will always bring about the balance needed, when it's necessary. :2cents:

Ambi :)

Herbwoman39

Oct 4, 2006, 10:55 PM

I'm not exactly sure where I stand on this whole matter. Yes, Foley was creepy and he should DEFINITELY be penalized in some way BUT at the age of 16 someone is generally old enough to know if they want to engage in sexual relations with someone else. Kids are much older experience-wise these days than I was when I was 16. The page knew what he was doing. It's not like he was wholy innocent in this debaucle.

As for the whole clergyman/alcohol excuse...it's a load of crap in my opinion.

SweetBlackAngel

Oct 4, 2006, 11:13 PM

wanderingrichard

Oct 4, 2006, 11:57 PM

has anyone besides me noticed that foley fits the proverbial profile for serial rapists and child molesters??

shameless agitator

Oct 5, 2006, 4:13 AM

has anyone besides me noticed that foley fits the proverbial profile for serial rapists and child molesters?? Sure have. I gotta tell ya what really pisses me off is the way the media seems to be more concerned with the fact that this page was male than with his being a child. I think it was LBJ who said the surest way for a man to commit political suicide was to get caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.

matterinhand

Oct 5, 2006, 4:30 AM

The impression I have of this situation so far, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but this guy was corresponding with a 16 yr old, and the 16 yr old (too old to be a boy, too young to be a Man) was encouraging sexual talk.

I don't know the precise chat involved, but looking at other parts of the forums about first experiences there seems to have been a lot of us starting to get sexually involved before the age of 16 even if it was only 'doctors and nurses' type play.

If a 16 yr old boy was chatting to me, worried about his sexuality, I would chat to him. But I wouldn't start to ask for photo's, or allow the chat to become sexually explicit.

But I do agree with a previous poster that it seems strange that in some parts of America a 16 yr old can go out and buy a gun, but not have consensual sex, and somebody I was chatting to reckoned they could join the army and get killed before they were allowed the pleasure of sexual relations. (Mind you we allow 16 yr olds to have sex, get married, have kids, but not vote.... so no systems perfect.)

canuckotter

Oct 5, 2006, 7:05 AM

I agree... At 16, I was old enough to know that I really wanted sex. (I didn't get any for a few more years though... me = nerd :tong: ). But regardless of that, the law in the US says that 18 is the age of consent. Foley is not only a citizen but one of the representatives who decide those laws; and more, he's one of the people who should have been helping prevent incidents like this from happening.

DiamondDog

Oct 5, 2006, 8:11 AM

Anyone read the NY times article about him?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/washington/05foley.html

Susie Bright also blogged about the chickenhawk but Sweet Black Angel wrote about that.

darkeyes

Oct 5, 2006, 8:19 AM

Know zactly wer me stands on this issue. Man is right wing tosser who supports an in the main adheres 2 right wing philosopies an a party which is hardly supportive of tolerance of any minorities.. Tories same here even allowin for tosspot Camerons nice new image of sweetness an lite. Neva believe owt that smarmy get wud say. Howeva enlightened he is on this issue me shud cry if he loses his position in society or it makes Bush an his lot uncomfy. Am as tolerant as ne 1 an hates 2 c peeps victimised for ne reason but I look at the wider pic an ne who supports a party or organisation which oozes hypocrisy warmongrin victimises the poor discriminates and attempts to oppress minorities, an is so arrogant as 2 claim their vision of freedom is the only one which is valid, is generally odious by definition. An me deliberateley leaves out the assertion of religious freakery an every1 is wrong but me cobblers they r always preachin.

jedinudist

Oct 5, 2006, 12:38 PM

I planned on "sitting this one out" myself, but heard something yesterday on NPR that literally almost caused me to have an accident (I was driving at the time).

They were interviewing some congressman or senator about the Foley issue. And he literally said this (this is as close to being an actual quote as I can manage right now).

Interviewee - "Gay men are obsessed with sex. They think about it all the time. A homosexual should not have been in charge of protecting children"

Interviewer - "There are some people who would take issue with that statement"

Interviewee - "I don't care if they take issue with it or not. It's a fact."

Interviewer - "you mean that's your opionion"

Interviewee - "No, it's a fact. I've talked to psyciatrists and psychologists who treat these people"

I could not believe that this ass was spewing this on the air! It was such a shock, I literally forgot for a moment that I was driving. These are the people who hold themselves above us, make the laws that we (but not they) have to abide by. The world's not going to hell in a handbasket - It's arrived!

Can anyone find the actual quote???

Herbwoman39

Oct 5, 2006, 4:45 PM

Tigerguy193

Oct 5, 2006, 5:11 PM

I was listening to Sean Hannity on the way home this afternoon and he had some information that is avialable on Matt Drudge.s website, "The Drudge Report" that states that this page was 18 when this incident happened AND the IMs are from three years ago according to Drudge.

I haven't looked into this myself but I still find it really interesting that Foley resigned if the young man really was of age at the time I also find it interesting that the young man has hired an attorney.

Age wasn't an issue. There seems to be the idea here that the age of consent in the US is 18. There is NO federal law concerning ages of consent. That is left to the states, and most states have an age of consent of 16. Two states even had it at 14 until recently. The District of Columbia's age is 16, so the page was legal whether he was 16 or 18.

Why he resigned is because he was propositioning a subordinate for sex using the resources of the United States government. That, and the fact that it's almost impossible for a "log cabin Republican" to be elected to office.

JohnnyV

Oct 5, 2006, 6:01 PM

Jedi,

I don't have the quote from NPR but if you go on youtube.com, do a search on "Bay Buchanan blasts GOP Leadership" and listen to what she says on that clip. She says:

"A known homosexual was talking to a 16-year-old boy on the Internet. That is all that anyone needed to know before they should have taken action."

I'm not surprised that the whole affair became open season on homosexuals. And I agree with Susie Bright -- the fact that the Democrats have only this as an ace against the Bush administration shows (1) how badly the Democrats have lost control of the discussion and (2) how uneducated and misinformed the US public has become.

I'm glad I'm not the only one (thanks to Susie Bright) who found it shocking that the Congress reversed a 791-year-old tradition of habeas corpus, basically inaugurating a "Third Reich" era in the United States legal system, yet people are still worried about a 52-year-old man asking a 16-year-old if he masturbates.

The only thing I can say is that if it takes this scandal to roll back the neofascist control of the US Congress, it is permissible. But ramping up America's tradition sexphobia is only going to backfire for the Dems -- just wait until next year or the year after that, when the next Mark Foley is a Democrat and the Republicans drop the story on the press weeks before a PRESIDENTIAL election. (Can I hear bells for 2008?)

J

I planned on "sitting this one out" myself, but heard something yesterday on NPR that literally almost caused me to have an accident (I was driving at the time).

They were interviewing some congressman or senator about the Foley issue. And he literally said this (this is as close to being an actual quote as I can manage right now).

Interviewee - "Gay men are obsessed with sex. They think about it all the time. A homosexual should not have been in charge of protecting children"

Interviewer - "There are some people who would take issue with that statement"

Interviewee - "I don't care if they take issue with it or not. It's a fact."

Interviewer - "you mean that's your opionion"

Interviewee - "No, it's a fact. I've talked to psyciatrists and psychologists who treat these people"

I could not believe that this ass was spewing this on the air! It was such a shock, I literally forgot for a moment that I was driving. These are the people who hold themselves above us, make the laws that we (but not they) have to abide by. The world's not going to hell in a handbasket - It's arrived!

Can anyone find the actual quote???

JohnnyV

Oct 5, 2006, 6:08 PM

Hey all,

I found the Bay Buchanan clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFFPEi0Uklo

I hope this link works; it's worth listening to. The Democratic guy with Buchanan says:

"If an adult is emailing my 16-year-old son, he's gonna have to deal with the law firm of Smith and Wesson."

Later Bay Buchanan says,

"They ought to take a man like Foley and beat him to an inch of his life, if he's that lucky...."

This is of course after Bay talks about the "known homosexual" factor.

Slowly but surely it becomes a gay-bashers' orgy of violence and condemnation. And being a father is no excuse for circumventing the law to shoot someone or hire goons to pummel him in a parking lot.

J

shameless agitator

Oct 5, 2006, 8:17 PM

Herbwoman39

Oct 5, 2006, 11:20 PM

Why he resigned is because he was propositioning a subordinate for sex using the resources of the United States government. That, and the fact that it's almost impossible for a "log cabin Republican" to be elected to office.

Ahhh! Thank you for clearing that up for me Tigerguy. And all this time I thought the issue was about the page being underage. Now I know better :)

coyotedude

Oct 6, 2006, 3:14 AM

To me, there are two issues in the Foley matter:

(1) Whether in Congress or a state legislature, an elected official has enormous power and influence over his or her employees. To abuse that power over any employee for sexual favors is flat wrong. To do so with a 16 year old page is inexcusable.

I've never worked for Congress, but I have worked in a state legislature as well as for elected officials in the executive branch of state government. So I have experience with both legislators and 16 year old pages.

Most pages I've met were away from home and parents for the first time in their lives. And no matter what the legal age of consent may be, they're still kids - most of them simply do not have the maturity level of an adult.

Even for an adult, it can be difficult to deal with the attentions of an elected official who has power over you. How in the hell do you expect a 16 year old away from home for the first time to deal with it? It can be thrilling, or it can be intimidating as hell.

I do not buy the argument that these pages were willing accomplices. Or rather, it doesn't matter that some of them may have enjoyed the attention of Congressman Foley. Foley still abused his position of power in enticing these pages with intimate contact with (gasp!) one of them - an actual Congressman!

As a congressman, Foley knew better. These folks aren't stupid; they know damn well the power and influence they hold over their staff. And yet he did it anyway. He violated the trust he was given. He would have been crossing the line if these pages were 36 instead of 16. The fact they were 16 just makes it worse.

That's why it doesn't matter to me whether the age of consent in the District of Columbia was 16 or 18 years old. As someone else pointed out, just because a behavior or an action may be legal doesn't make it moral or right.

(2) As bad as Foley's behavior was, the actions of the congressional Republican leadership were equally wrong.

Congressional and legislative leadership has a responsibility to protect staff from the abuses of members. The fact that House Republican leaders have known about Foley's behavior and let it go for the sake of political expediency is worse than irresponsible; they utterly failed in the trust they were given. They completely abdicated whatever responsibility they had over the pages they were charged to protect. In fact, what the leadership did was the equivalent of pimping the congressional pages to Foley. It is inexcusable.

Phew! Guess I feel a little strongly about this. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. But between my experience in the state legislature, my friends and family still working in the legislature, and the fact that I have a 16 and a 19 year old sister - well, I guess I am a little biased....

Peace

3ofcups

Oct 6, 2006, 7:32 AM

Totally agree with the above statement.

Foley was asking for dates and rendevouxes from these pages for the last 11 years, most were underage. Nothing was done and the information was kept from the responsible parties on the Dem side. The 'age of consent' arguement is only acceptable for Romeo-and-Juiet type relationships - that is, not to penalize to young people for doing each other. The imbalance of power between an forty-something year old who is a federal official and a page (read: politian in training) whether he is 16 or 18 is huge. Any relationship where the power resides in only one of the persons can be considered abusive. These pages had little power to say: 'no, thanks' without the worry and stress of offending those who may affect their future career. This is not about sex, it is about power.

JohnnyV

Oct 6, 2006, 10:16 AM

anne27

Oct 6, 2006, 10:34 AM

There is a world of difference between 16 and 21, and a whole lot of maturity differences between those ages.

coyotedude

Oct 6, 2006, 3:03 PM

I can understand all the criticism of Foley, but I am wondering if all the people who have posted against Foley would apply the same ethical logic to Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, who was 21 and an intern when he was a President also in his early 50s.

Please let me share my perspective. I am a Democrat who thinks that in most respects, Clinton was 10 times the president that Bush is now. (That is not necessarily high praise for Clinton; my spastic lab/husky mix would be 10 times the president that Bush is.) And I opposed the impeachment for a variety of reasons.

But.

You're damn right that my critique of Foley also applies to Clinton. If you're going to cheat on your partner, you don't do it with staff, period. And you sure as hell don't do it with a 21 year old intern. And Clinton, like Foley, knew better.

I kept wondering through the whole Lewinsky scandal why everyone ignored the real issue (abuse of power over a vulnerable subordinate). Even most of the Clinton-bashers in politics and the media didn't really get it. They all focused on the infidelity (like most of them hadn't cheated on their partners) and on the lies (like most of them hadn't lied about their own infidelities). I think it is that level of hypocrisy that led many people to roll their eyes at the anti-Clinton crowd, even though Clinton's conduct was in itself outrageous.

Just my :2cents:

Oh and for the record: if it were the Democrats in charge of the Congress instead of the Republicans, I'd be just as disgusted by this whole thing. This should not be a partisan issue.

Peace

Herbwoman39

Oct 6, 2006, 9:58 PM

Now we should all know better than to believe any thing coming from Hannity or Drudge.

Uhm...why?

wanderingrichard

Oct 7, 2006, 1:27 AM

ok, on a side and lighter note, but still dealing with our frelled up problems here, i really believe that robin williams' trailers for his new political spoof are dead on the money when he says they should be changed like diapers, and for the same reasons... maybe we need a comedian in charge for once.

now,

agreed with whomever said this is not partisan politics here.. this is morality and ethics gone bad with abuse of power and trust thrown in, all to get your rocks off, or try to.

with queers like this in our ranks , who needs enemies?

back to misbehaving congress critters and shrill anti queer voices of unreason; hang the lot by their gonads till they dry out and blow away, lift a corner of the jail and drop it on them after we toss them under, whatever.. but for damn sure do not let this go unpunished.

JohnnyV

Oct 7, 2006, 12:14 PM

hahaha, this is an awesome piece on it:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn10072006.html

You have to love any writer named cockburn.

J :)

tatooedpunk

Oct 8, 2006, 3:35 PM

As a parent myself it doesn't matter who you are children are OFF LIMITS i dont think anything makes me angrier than child abuse be it sexual or otherwise

Sweet59

Oct 11, 2006, 12:08 PM

I agree with Smokey. "The problem (or issue as the case may be) is the Republicans and especially the radicals in the house have positioned themselves as more American, more religious and more moral (among other things) than their so-called enemies, the liberals and Democrats."

It's the Republicans that have coddled the Religious Right, lied about their own morals to get the vote of the religious community. The same community that does not want Gay Marriage, that supports the President and the invasion of Iraq, that want to control what I read, view and do in my bedroom. It's karma coming back on the Republican party for using the Religious community to gain power. People are so nieve as to believe that the politicians really believe what the supports believe. Hopefully this will open some eyes, and perhaps we can vote people in who have everyones interest at heart instead of just some powerful groups who like to control the rest of us.

Just my :2cents:

12voltman59

Oct 11, 2006, 10:43 PM

I can vouch for the NPR interview--I heard it too---I think that the interviewer let that right wing dingbat off way too easy but then she would have spent the whole time alloted for the interview trying to argue with someone who would not back down off a stupid, ignorant and set in stone viewpoint--something all too typical of those of the conservative right---with them its "don't confuse me with the facts-my mind is made up and I have my position and I am sticking to it"

As far as the Foley situation is concerned---it is also kind of typical of these right wingnuts--they love to rally against the things they hate most in themselves--kind of like old Jimmy Swaggart when he used to always rant on the evils of prostitution on his television show and then he got caught with his willie in the hand or some other place belonging to a prostitute-and then he went on his show with tears in his eyes admitting he had sinned---

I am just pretty well sick and tired of these right wingnuts---they are so hypocritical.

I totally rejected the whole right wing thing back in the 70s and 80s when the modern version got ramped up----one of their mantras at the time was "we have to get the government off the backs of the people."

What a crock--what the Republicans conservatives really meant was that they wanted to get the government off the backs of the people who run the multi-national corporations--but they sure as hell had no problem with using the "evil government" to get on the backs of the people in their bedrooms or dens--they would like to control who the average Joe/Jane screws-and of screwing can only take place when done by a legally married male-female couple--or Joe and or Jane wants to smoke a little weed or blow some coke.

Thinking about the way things are pretty well fucked up these days--under the auspices of the Republicans from the disaster of Katrina, the situation in Iraq and now Afghanistan and now the North Koreans have apparently set off a nuke(--but of course its all Bill Clinton's fault on that one!). God knows what that will lead to???

The Republicans basically have delivered what they said they would if you really paid close attention to what they said they would do when they got power--they would render government basically ineffective with some exceptions.

Let's face it --the Republicans ran as basically being anti-government and they have pretty well trashed the system---the one thing they have done superbly in regards to government is to use government to fill the coffers of Halliburton, ExxonMobile, Shell Oil, BP, CITGO (oh no--CITGO is run by a socialist kook!!!) et al and to enrich an almost infestimally small portion of the population to an extent beyond even their wildest dreams while the rest of us stupid schmucks struggle just to keep our heads above water.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia put it pretty well when he was asked in an interview if he should have recused himself in some case that would help his long time friend Vice President Dick Cheney--I forgot the exact quote but it was something along the lines of "what good is it to be in a position of influence if you can't help out your friends?"

Hopefully enough people are beginning to wake up and start to shake off the effects of the Republican Kool Aide.

Maybe this mid-term election will bring about a shift to some degree, otherwise it will be the same old crap--"Stay the course" and all that rot.....

As far as Foley is concerned--I am glad he got hung on his own petard--I just hope it takes down Hastert, Boehner and the rest of the Republicon house leadership---

DiamondDog

Oct 12, 2006, 1:13 AM

I think our culture is actually obsessed with pedophelia, though it pretends to be shocked and outraged by it.

long_thick_hard202

Oct 12, 2006, 2:40 AM

Republicans are nothing but scumbags! The Bush crime syndicate must go! Thank God the midterm elections are coming up! The Democrats are going to take this country back from all the crime, corruption, and endless scandals the Republican party has put upon our nation. God bless our troops and our country. By the way the GOP now means Gay Old Pedophiles!!!

darkeyes

Oct 12, 2006, 6:03 PM

Me really enjoyed all the posts on this 1. Not really gonna comment on them cos me sed me piece earlier but think one thing that Bushie an his creepos hav given the world apart from fear, corruption, hypocrisy, war an all the rest is a bloody good belly laff at ther antics an general incoherency! Mayb its cos we r so far away an can stand apart but we cud c wotta tit Bush wos before he wos even the Republican candidate, an an odious tosser Rumsfeldt an jus how nasty american republicanism is wiv its devotion 2 all things "Gaad" an the way 2 salvation, an their particularly unpleasant interpretation an over use of the word "freedom"! Wot Bush has dun, is make the US a bloody laffin stock throughout the planet, a bloody dangerously maverick dont give a bugga bout ne one but us laffin stock 2. I don care wot reigns in Bush, I jus know it needs done an quick fore we really find the world in a position wer the harm he has done is simply irreversible.

Next time for all our sakes will ya elect sum pres who at least has a bloody brain in his head, can think an speak clearly, an has some understanding an compassion for humankind in all nations not just his own..not that he has much understandin or compassion for his own folk, unless they happen 2 b well oiled mates an who can supply him with the werewithal ta keep his juggernaut of nastiness rollin along!

And finally. Folk who r membas of this site will b aware, that jus occasionally me uses the word F O L K folk. Not folks. Folk is an old word meaning people, normally ordinary scruffs like me an thee! The word is plural and in his peculiar way ole ramblin GW uses the word F O L K S folks, as indeed I know many of our transatlantic cousins do. It is merely a wee lesson in vocabulary. The word F O L K folk has no need of an s. It never used 2 bother me until I heard Bush's constant irritating use of the word an it really sets me teeth on edge an gives me lugs a severe bashin. So me has another reason for wantin Bush an his lot outa the way...PLEASE SAVE FRAN'S BLOODY TEETH AN EARS! Thank you.

Herbwoman39

Oct 12, 2006, 6:15 PM

I did not think that Clinton's behavior warranted his impeachment because I thought, from the beginning that Lewinsky was old enough to know what she was doing, and the affair was consensual.

The difference here is that Clinton lied under oath. The threat of impeachment was because of the lies, NOT because of the sexual misconduct.
Foley has to deal with the fallout for that misconduct in his own life.

As someone else said, this is not a partisan issue. it's about the abuse of power.

wanderingrichard

Oct 12, 2006, 10:30 PM

more food for thot on this from other sources

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/10/10/185901.php

and

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/10/12/020302.php

and, yeah i'd just run across them [was actually researching the late strategist and american chinese general homer lea for class. ]

Doggie_Wood

Oct 12, 2006, 11:46 PM

Fuck a bunch of politicians - they're mostly all corrupt, selfish egotistical assholes who have less moral fiber than a square of shreaded wheat. I personally think that if your a fucking attorney, an asswipe ambulance chaser, you should be barred from running for any political office.
Give the government back "To, For and By The People".

Just wanted to throw in my :2cents:
:doggie:

twosides

Oct 13, 2006, 10:07 PM

There are good politicians. There are bad politicians.
There are normal homosexuals. There are deviant homosexuals.
There are smart people. There are dumb people.
There are sexually active teenagers. There are virginal 40 year olds.

I don't know why I started out with this but I was just trying to get my thought process going. As it is, I think that people too quickly label other people when they don't really know what the truth is.

Does it really surprise you that this kind of thing goes on in a power town such as DC? Maybe I'm more cynical than most people, but I gotta believe that anyone who needed to know what was going on three plus years ago knew the story. They might not have seen the IMs and emails in question, but they knew the story and didn't react to it. Should it have been reacted to? I believe that the facts state that another openly gay congressman approached and reproached Foley for what was brought to light.

Is what he did wrong? IMO, yes. Abuse of power, etc. Should he have stepped down? Yes. As should any politician who breaks any law that they have been elected to make and uphold. And if they won't step down, then let the rules of government be as it is.

Should we get rid of all those who do not act or believe the same way as you or I? How do you make that list? Is your list going to be the same as my list? Should we get rid of all of them at the same time? What kind of turmoil would that bring upon this country? And what about the good ones? Why should they have to pay for the actions of the others? Is your definition of good the same as that person over there?

We can only do what we can honestly do. Vote in those people who do not have an iota of degradation in their past. Is that possible? I doubt it. Second to that, vote in the best people that we can and remove all those that fail to live up to the definition of what we want this country to stand for.

Now here is where the big problem is. In politics, at least. Everyone has a different opinion of what the standards should be. That's why the right goes for a time honored standard relating to their religious beliefs. That's why the left holds up progressive change so that the situation is not what it is at this moment. That's why the moderates try to pick and choose a middle of the road, best of both worlds view. The problem is compounded by the apparent difference between what the politicians from both sides say and do. Yes. Both sides.

OK. I've asked enough questions. I don't have any more answers than what I've written. I have opinions, but unless ones mind and heart is open, whatever I say will have no consequence.

I wish that this partisian bickering would stop and they could make this a better country than what it is. Everybody has to understand that 300 million people in the US leads to some very disparate viewpoints. As the great philosopher, Rodney King, says, "Can't we just all get along?"