betsy

Who do you mean "we"? Oddly, many of those defending Foley we among the most rabid over Lewinski. Why, wasn't Lewinski's case a classic example of the ultimate abuse of power and authority? No less than the President himself! Compounded by the fact that he not only abused his power...but sullied the oval office as well? Foley had resigned. Clinton had to be impeached! And if rumors are true, Iraq paid for it as a last ditch attempt to distract the public from the scandal! If we're going to be outraged or scandalised at all...let it be for the right reason.

Assuming what details we know are all true (discussed on several threads) , I cannot see where do we come acting out so shocked and appalled about it. The boy was already 16 when it happened. And most of those who are so critical and condemning of Foley are mostly the same ones who support the lobbying of EGALE to lower the age of consent to 14! 14! There's quite a difference between 14 and 16! The concern is not the sexual thing....but the possible abuse of power or authority.

No kidding. A decade ago parents were worried about their daughters...who wouldn't be? Now, they're worried about their sons as well!

You think Foley was misguided? Depends on what is meant by "misguided". Maybe it's the wrong word to use. If what Foley had said is true, that he'd been molested by a homosexual priest between the age of 13 and 15...it most probably contributed to what he'd become. I would say that he's most probably one confused person struggling with his sexuality. The gay article referred that he has a relationship when he was a young adult (heterosexual relationship?)...so I'd assume that he's been trying to find his way. Apparently he had not had any other incidents like this before (again, basing it to what I've read)...so he was "fighting" the urges I guess all this time. Like pedophilia, fantacies (no matter how sick they are) become crimes only when they are acted upon. Of course, this is all speculations on my part...we don't really know all the details. We'll just have to wait for the outcome of the investigation. At least he did the right thing in giving his resignation.

Hypocrisy, Democrat Style By Ben Stein Published 10/2/2006 1:12:08 AM If there were an Academy Award for Hypocrisy, the surefire favorite for 2006 would be the Democratic Party. Just two recent items make the decision a virtual certainty: The Representative Foley "scandal" is really worthy of a whole book on hypocrisy. On the one hand, we have a poor misguided Republican man who had a romantic thing for young boys. He sent them suggestive e-mail. I agree, that's not great. On the other hand, we have a Democratic party that worships (not likes, WORSHIPS) a man named Bill Clinton who did not send suggestive e-mails as far as we know, but who had a barely legal intern give him oral sex kneeling under his desk in the Oval Office while he talked on the phone to a Congressional Committee Chairman, took great pleasure in putting a cigar in her orifice and then smelling it and tasting it, and having her fellate him when in the sacred seat of power of the world's leading Republic. And the Democrats cheer themselves hoarse for him. His wife has a great shot at being our next President. We have a Republican man in Congress who sent e-mails to teenage boys asking them what they were wearing, and an entire party, the Democrats, whose primary constituency, besides the teachers' unions, is homosexual men and lesbian women. I hope it won't come as a surprise to anyone that a big part of male homosexual behavior is interest in young boys. (Take a look at anyone renting Endless Summer next time you are at the video store.) Don't get me wrong. My very best friend is gay. I have many gay friends and they are great people. But how the Democrats, the party of gays, can be coming down this hard on a MC who's gay is simply beyond belief. One of my top, favorite congressmen, Barney Frank, is openly gay. Might he say a word in defense of his fellow gay MC right about now? Hmm, I thought not. Second, let's look at George Allen. Now, he's a bad guy because he has a Confederate flag. Let's get it straight. To millions of our fellow citizens, this flag has zero to do with racism. It is entirely about respect for a time of unbelievable horror in our society, The Civil War, and respect for men who fought so brilliantly for a cause that was unquestionably -- by decent standards -- a bad cause. Moreover, the stars and bars are a beautiful design and show nothing whatsoever about a person's views about non-whites. No one has suggested that George Allen did anything racist or anti-black in his work in the Senate or as Governor. For him to be judged by what historical relics he owns is pure thought crime. But the hypocrisy comes in because the Democrats have as their dean in the Senate an actual former Klansman, Robert Byrd of West Virginia. In my very clear memory, the whole bulk of the senior Democrats routinely called blacks "nigras" and voted against any kind of civil rights laws, right down to anti-lynching laws. And this is the party that presumes to judge a man because he owns a Civil War artifact memorializing incredible American courage? Didn't we just recently have as President a Democrat from Georgia who was inches away from being a segregationist in his early career? And what did his state flag look like when he was governor? And George Allen is being judged by these people? Again, for sheer hypocrisy, the winner is: the Democratic Party. Again. Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10434

Yes, the timing is perfect. And with this comment: "He voted for the Defense of Marriage Act and has not renounced that vote. " It seems there's an axe to grind.

Gay community analyzes Mark Foley's resignation, says he's 'in the closet' BY STEVE ROTHAUS McClatchy Newspapers "He was a homophobe who needed to be exposed," said journalist Michael Rogers, whose Web site,http://www.blogactive.com/, reported on Florida Rep. Mark Foley for three years. "I first started to report on Foley in March 2003," said Rogers, who is gay. "The reason why -- he's antigay. He voted for the Defense of Marriage Act and has not renounced that vote. He refused to acknowledge that he supported the repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell.' He would not sign on as a co-sponsor. He should be held accountable for not supporting that or co-sponsoring. "No community is expected to harbor their own enemies from within. He is an enemy of our community, yet he wants to step into our community and put us at risk. He puts every one of us in a bad light." In 1996, The Advocate, a gay newsmagazine, outed Foley. During his 2003 run for U.S. Senate, several Florida newspapers reported the old Advocate story. Foley has never publicly said that he is gay. On May 23, 2003, he called a news conference and said that the innuendo about his life was "revolting and unforgivable" and that he would not discuss his sexual orientation. "Elected officials, even those who run for the United States Senate, must have some level of privacy," Foley said during a half-hour conference call with newspaper reporters from across Florida. "My mother and father raised me and the rest of my family to believe that there are certain things we shouldn't discuss in public. Some of you may believe that it's old-fashioned, but I believe those are good ideals to live by." Rogers said Foley's problems come from being in the closet. "I do believe that he had unhealthy sexual advances to these guys because he was living his life as a closeted gay man," Rogers said. "Healthy gay men who are mature and dealing with their sexuality in a mature way don't hit on kids who are 16 years old. What's his signature issue? You don't know whether to laugh or cry." Finance writer Andrew Tobias of Miami, who is gay and treasurer of the Democratic National Committee said: "As somebody who has met Mark Foley personally and has mutual friends, I am sad for Mark and I hope he doesn't go to jail. The last time I saw Mark, he was 19 years into a relationship. That was sad that it had to be hidden. "I hope the Republican Party continues to evolve so it's not so difficult to be an openly gay Republican. "Will this play into the fears that all gay people are pedophiles? I hope not. There are heterosexual situations as well. Everybody decries this kind of situation. Even Mark Foley did, but he couldn't control it." Other gay activists were more circumspect. "It's a tragedy for him and his family. I don't want to get into the pain of the closet. It's irrelevant if he's gay or not," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Luis Vizcaino, communications and marketing director for Human Rights Campaign, declined to discuss Foley's resignation. "We're not going to comment on it," he said. In 2005, HRC gave Foley an 88 out of 100 score on gay issues, making him one of the highest-ranked Republicans in Congress. http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/n...al/15653544.htm

Foley says clergyman abused him; admits he's gay Associated Press Washington — Disgraced former U.S. Representative Mark Foley said through his lawyer Tuesday that he was abused by a clergyman as a teenager, but accepts full responsibility for sending salacious computer messages to teenage male pages. Lawyer David Roth said Mr. Foley was molested between ages 13 and 15 by a clergyman. He declined to identify the clergyman or the church, but Mr. Foley is Roman Catholic. The lawyer said Mr. Foley, who is now in treatment for alcohol abuse, never had any inappropriate sexual contact with a minor. He said Mr. Foley was under the influence of alcohol when he sent many of the e-mails and instant messages. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ernational/home If it is true, the confession of Foley supports what Gerry had suggested as a possibility, and what some of us had suggested all along in previous debates: that homosexuality is not necessarily only biological.....that it could also be acquired. Please take note again of the age he was when molested. It also seems to support what Gerry had suggested as a possibility: the job had something to do with it. From what I've read from other materials, Foley tried his best to contain his "demon"....but the power that came with the job offered temptations too hard to resists. Though it may not be in the case of Foley, it is understandable though why certain jobs attract certain types of people.

Like the Liberal thinkers?

Your're saying we shouldn't criticise pedophiles who wants to diddle little kids! Or sadists? Or Snuff-ists ? (heck don't know what they call 'em) That to do so, it's stupid???? Ahem.....

You were the one who suggested lesbian orgies. You tell me. For all I know you're privvy with the lesbian world...that, maybe orgy-ing is just part of their lifestyle....just like the cool slurp rails in Toronto (according to Christie Blatchford). How should I know?

A lesbian orgy? Why, were there supposed to be more than two of them? The whole gang? Seems you know more details than I do...so yeah, that too.

I can live with religious institutions creating all sorts of arbitrary rules that restrict who can and cannot use their facilities. However, there must be a clear line to ensure that businesses operating under the guise of a 'religious organization' do not use this exception to justify discrimination. There are a number of different ways to ensure this (i.e. the facility must be owned by a religious organization as defined by tax code). Restricting access to followers of the faith would be another way to ensure this exemption is not abused. I don't care about the exact specifics of the rule as long as there is one and it is unambiguous. I agree with Argus. The refusal was not because they were lesbians. The Christian churches that I know of would never turn away sinners. It was simply because the lesbians were going to use the place for something which is considered a sin.

Since when is gay bashing a freedom of speech issue? I don't want any hate mongers and homophobia legitimized especially by our national government. Im not very happy about the 'others who critisize homosexual behaviour' idea, who exactly are the others and what are legitimate grounds for refusing to do business with gays? Isn't there a court case going on now in Montreal because a bar refused to serve a black guy because he was black? Tread lightly Mr. Harper... I do support legislation regarding people not having to marry gay couples if they think its against their religion... sure fine... but discriminatory business practices based on sexual preference... just sounds... well... wrong. Of course we have yet to see the actual legislation so, we will know soon enough i suppose... sigh... 1 step forward 3 steps back The incident with Knights of Columbus was given as an example. As for criticisms of behaviours....well, aren't homosexuals free to criticise the others as well? Anyway, since when did criticism of behaviour become a crime? Look at our former Gov Gen Clarkson....she criticized the behaviour of the queen...and published it to boot! Someone I know (an atheist) said that the freedom of speech should not only be for religious groups. That it should also include people who don't belong with any religious faith...to have the freedom to express an opinion and what they believe in. And she's right. Why should it only be for religious groups? The way I look at it, as long as it does not incite hatred towards any particular group or race.

And I would also like to know how you support this assertion you made: "Do you know any 2nd or 3rd generation Muslim immigrants ? They lose their faith as all of us have." So far, my question regarding that sweeping comment remains unanswered. So I'll re-post it: "Where do you get your facts that you can confidently "generalize?" Generalize not only regarding ALL 2nd and 3rd generation Muslim immigrants losing their faith.....but also about " they lose their faith as ALL OF US have." I know some French and English Canadians who are 3rd generation or more...some are descendants from the settlers...and yet still practice the same faith. You need to support your statement.

I'd be the best proof ? How do you mean ? You've already stated that you are friends with Muslims. Isn't that proof enough that they can assimilate, like every other race ? This is not about assimilation. Some terrorists had even more than assimilated quite superbly in fact (London bombing and some suspects from Parliament plot))....they were even born and raised in a western society. So of course, being friends with Muslims isn't proof enough! And you know it. Michael, do stop kidding and be serious.....otherwise I'd think you're trying to deflect and wiggle out from having to support your argument. You said: "Your apprehension is based on a fallacy that Muslims will behave differently than every other people who came to the Americas. I just don't think that's true. " And I asked: How can you say it's a "fallacy?" How do you support your assertion that it is a "fallacy?"

"Tories plan to protect same-sex opponents If government loses bid to reopen debate, Defence of Religions Act is next option By JOHN IBBITSON and BILL CURRY AND BRIAN LAGHI From Wednesday's Globe and Mail OTTAWA — The Conservative government is planning measures, including a Defence of Religions Act, to allow public officials, such as Justices of the Peace, to refuse to perform same-sex marriages. The measures are also intended to protect the free-speech rights of religious leaders and others who criticize homosexual behaviour or refuse to do business with gay-rights organizations, The Globe and Mail has learned. Any legislation would be brought forward only if the government loses the motion this fall to reopen the debate on same-sex marriage. All indications are that the motion, which would authorize the government to introduce legislation to repeal the same-sex marriage law passed by Parliament last year, will be defeated by a combination of Opposition MPs supported by a few Conservatives." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...3/BNStory/Front When pointedly asked at MDuffy Live, Conservative Kenney did not deny or confrim that a legislation is going to come. A journalist who talked to a judge said the judge confirmed it saying: "oh, it's coming." Kenney said the vote on same-sex marriage will happen sometime in the fall.

5 Oct Just heard it from a Conservative (MDuffy Live) that another Liberal corruption scandal is about to come out. This time it involves the Native Band in Manitoba. I don't know the details. Anybody know about that? Both NDP and Conservative were ribbing the Liberal rep saying: "it's halloween for the Liberals!"

True! She's doing the round, as they say. I saw her being interviewed one-on-one on tv but I wasn't really listening. They were talking about powder (I thought she was giving tips how they did it in China! There was some giggling involved.). Only when I saw this article did I understand what it was all about. It's nothing more than a publicity stunt. Quite revealing though....when someone of her supposed stature would stoop to that.

Clarkson disses the Queen In new book, ex-GG gets all haughty about royal manners but experts say she misses the point Oct. 3, 2006. 07:46 AM DAVID GRAHAM LIFE WRITER Has the student surpassed the teacher? Has former Governor General Adrienne Clarkson polished her refined politeness to such a brilliant sheen that she can now pass judgment on Britain's Queen of courtly behaviour, the royal She herself — QE-2? In her book Heart Matters, Clarkson, the Queen's representative in Canada from 1999 to 2005, takes a swipe at Liz for daring to powder her privileged puss during a fancy dinner party. Clarkson was gob-smacked and insists that such a breach of etiquette would never be tolerated in Canada. It gets worse. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...4&t=TS_Home I guess she believe the more dirt she piles up in her "tell-all", the better it sells! To really make a big deal about the queen powdering her nose? A pity she'd chosen to lump herself with former stablehands and butlers- turned- book- authors, attempting to cash in on the royal dirt hunt! So she thinks that? So petty. Big deal! Btw, did she bring up the outrage over her extravagant spendings while GG? I haven't read the book...and have no intention to.

AMERICA’s efforts to secure future energy supplies — the “Great Game” of 21st-century global diplomacy — became entangled yesterday with an even greater game: that of poking fun at Kazakhstan, as played by the British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1711094/posts After years of getting wound up by Borat, Kazakh officials have finally changed tactics and admitted that they see the funny side. BBC News report that the Kazakh embassador to Britain said "People in Kazakhstan laugh at the same things as people laugh at everywhere in the world". He went on to say that the film could actually be good for Kazakhstan "I believe that all publicity is good for business, so indirectly people are encouraged to explore the country for themselves". The Kazakh press secretary Roman Vasilenko actually made a joke about Borat, "He is not a Kazakh. What he represents is a country of Boratastan, a country of one". This is all a big change of direction from the legal action Kazakh officials were threatening after Borat's appearance presenting the MTV Europe Music Awards in 2005. http://www.boratonline.co.uk/ Borat shuts down TIFF Posted by Matt in Toronto Film Festival 2006 Even before "it" happened, tonight's screening of Borat Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazhakstan - or simply Borat to those in the know - would have been the single strangest Midnight Madness I had ever attended. A three hundred person rush line, a throng of people outside the Ryerson chanting "BORAT! BORAT! BORAT!", and Sacha Baron Cohen arriving on the red carpet in character... and riding a horse. Then the projector broke. http://www.blogto.com/toronto_film_festiva...huts_down_tiff/ I couldn't help laughing about his character...his antics and jokes are wickedly funny!

I agree with you.

I guess we'd have to look at Foley's law, the one he wrote. It dealt specifically for situations like this. The FBI can now be involved in this. Perhaps they will be pressing charges independent of whether the page does. Certainly, the Republicans are accusing each other in all of this. They are pointing at past Democratic scandals but surely they know it only makes this situation seem an even worse betrayal. Republicans are supposed to be protecting young people from abuse. If any of them knew about this in 2005 and kept quiet to win a Congressonal seat, it not only puts Foley's seat in trouble but others as well. They said on TV the other day that parents are pulling their kids out of the page program in Washington because of this. I don't blame them. I looked it up and this dated 2001 says: Revised Code of Washington Updated again 01-2001: RCW 9A.44.093 "(1) A person is guilty of sexual misconduct with a minor in the first degree when the person has, or knowingly causes another person under the age of eighteen to have, sexual intercourse with another person who is at least sixteen years old but less than eighteen years old and not married to the perpetrator, if the perpetrator is at least sixty months older than the victim, is in a significant relationship to the victim, and abuses a supervisory position within that relationship in order to engage in or cause another person under the age of eighteen to engage in sexual intercourse with the victim." The Age of Consent in Washington is not 18. It is 16. The statute (shown above) that you are making reference to makes it a crime for a person 60-months or older than the younger person to have sexual intercoarse with the younger person if ALL of the following conditions exist: 1-The older person is in a "significent" relationship with the younger person, AND the older person is in a supervisory relationship within that relationship, AND uses that supervisory position in order to have sexual intercourse with the younger person. This statute refers to relationships between persons who become sexually involved 16 or 17-years-olds, and who are in a position of authority over the younger person and use this authority to gain a sexual advantage. Such a situation might exist between a 16 or 17-year-old student and a teacher or coach who is at least 60 months older. http://sidesplitters.catastrophe.net/arch/.../washington.htm ---------------------------------- So, the age of consent is 16 (assuming it hadn't been changed). Foley is more than 60 months older and is in a position of authority. I guess we'll just have to wait for more details. So far, I'd assume there was no actual sexual contact. It didn't refer to the crime as pedophilia. It's sexual misconduct with a minor. PS Gerry's own article link referred to it as such: "criminal activity involving a minor" "Congressman Reynolds‘ inaction in the face of such a serious situation is very troubling, and raises important questions about whether there was an attempt to cover up criminal activity involving a minor to keep it from coming to light before Election Day," said Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Karen Finney.

I believe some Republicans have been callling him that. You believe he was not? I would think it is corrupting a minor, compounded by the fact that Foley holds some power...assuming no actual abuse had taken place. I'm not sure...that's why I'm asking.

I am confused here. Gerry, why are you calling Foley a "pedophile" when according to your link, the boy was already 16 years old at the time? Isn't he just gay?