betsy Posted October 5, 2006 Report Posted October 5, 2006 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. Quote
Figleaf Posted October 5, 2006 Report Posted October 5, 2006 (edited) [. Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf Quote
betsy Posted October 5, 2006 Author Report Posted October 5, 2006 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! 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. Quote
Argus Posted October 5, 2006 Report Posted October 5, 2006 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. I tend to think 16 year olds can take care of themselves in most cases. However, there are extenuating circumstances here. A young page away from home, in congress, should not be subjected to sexual overtures by adults who have or may be seen as having authority over him. That would certainly include congressmen and senators, who a page could see as being a powerful figure with power over him/her. Second, while the age of consent is low in Canada, in some US jurisdictions it is 18, and enforced. Third, this is a Republican, one one of those bible-thumping, family values people who runs on being a good, solid Christian while sneering at those dirty abortion loving, sexual freedom type democrats and liberals. To make it worse this was a guy who publicly led the charge against predators, including on-line predators of children (generally defined in law as anyone under 18). So for him to get caught sending dirty love messages to the pages is pretty outrageous. Fourth, much of the fuss is not over what he did but over what the party did. Apparently his behaviour was known about, at least to some degree, by his party's leaders, who essentially didn't care and kept quiet. Again, this is the family values, anti-homo, anti-abortion, anti-sex-education, anti-birth-control religious wacko party The concern is not the sexual thing....but the possible abuse of power or authority. And hypocrisy and dishonesty. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
BubberMiley Posted October 5, 2006 Report Posted October 5, 2006 Lewinski was nearly 23 years old and above the age of consent in all 50 states. That was two consenting adults; Foley's case is not. I think your grouping of critics of Foley and so-called EGALE is purely in your imagination, which suspiciously dwells a considerable amount of time on the topic of homosexuality. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
betsy Posted October 6, 2006 Author Report Posted October 6, 2006 Lewinski was nearly 23 years old and above the age of consent in all 50 states. That was two consenting adults; Foley's case is not. But both fall under the abuse of power and authority. True that Lewinski and Clinton were adults. Although both had been consenting...it is arguable what led a young woman like Lewinski to indulge in it. Rewards as in patronage by an influential figure could be a possible inducement. Clinton is a married man. Granted that adultery is no longer uncommon...but being the head of the state, couldn't he at least indulged in his sordid affairs outside of the White House, considering his wife was just somewhere in the same building? If he has no respect at all for his wife, he should at least show some respect for the office and his position. And if rumors were true ....don't you find it appalling that Iraq got bombed not for the suspicion of hiding some nuke weapons....but just to distract from the scandal of a blowjob? Then, there was the attempt at minimizing the shock value - oral sex, he said, is not having sex. Just like justifying pot smoking with, "I did not inhale." He could've just owned up to the mistake, after all he's only human. And then there were the other more sordid allegations. Of sexual harrassments from several women. Clinton was the President of the US. A key figure in the free world. A big influence globally. Foley was what, compared to him? At least Foley gave his resignation. Clinton had to be pried and dragged out of there. Quote
Shakeyhands Posted October 6, 2006 Report Posted October 6, 2006 it amazes me all the excuses that all the conservative types are coming up with, Dudge even tried to pass it all off as a prank... Can you imagine if there was a D behind the name instead of an R? Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
betsy Posted October 6, 2006 Author Report Posted October 6, 2006 Third, this is a Republican, one one of those bible-thumping, family values people who runs on being a good, solid Christian while sneering at those dirty abortion loving, sexual freedom type democrats and liberals. To make it worse this was a guy who publicly led the charge against predators, including on-line predators of children (generally defined in law as anyone under 18). So for him to get caught sending dirty love messages to the pages is pretty outrageous. What he did was wrong, and true...outrageous...considering the crusade he was leading against predators. Pervert priests do the same. They lead the crusade against sinning....against hurting others. Don't they all look so holy? Yet there are the Clintons and Foleys among them...hiding behind those frocks and the bible. Look at the Feminists Movement....who were supposed to be leading the crusades against the abuse of women in whatever way or form. They were noticeably quiet about Clinton. Clinton may not be thumping the bible....but he was supposed to be running his own crusade as the leader of a powerful nation. We've seen and heard of numerous accounts of perversities coming from priests and ministers....that we shouldn't even be looking at the religious factor anymore when someone is running in politics. Especially Politics! We're no longer that naive to think that just because somebody is thumping the bible, that he couldn't be possibly using the bible as a shield! Daycares, Schools, Big brothers, Boy Scout.....they all promote values....but they're not immuned from attracting the perverts who would seek to get in such positions of power to satisfy their sick fantasies. Quote
Argus Posted October 6, 2006 Report Posted October 6, 2006 Third, this is a Republican, one one of those bible-thumping, family values people who runs on being a good, solid Christian while sneering at those dirty abortion loving, sexual freedom type democrats and liberals. To make it worse this was a guy who publicly led the charge against predators, including on-line predators of children (generally defined in law as anyone under 18). So for him to get caught sending dirty love messages to the pages is pretty outrageous. What he did was wrong, and true...outrageous...considering the crusade he was leading against predators. Pervert priests do the same. They lead the crusade against sinning....against hurting others. Don't they all look so holy? Yet there are the Clintons and Foleys among them...hiding behind those frocks and the bible. Look at the Feminists Movement....who were supposed to be leading the crusades against the abuse of women in whatever way or form. They were noticeably quiet about Clinton. Clinton may not be thumping the bible....but he was supposed to be running his own crusade as the leader of a powerful nation. We've seen and heard of numerous accounts of perversities coming from priests and ministers....that we shouldn't even be looking at the religious factor anymore when someone is running in politics. Especially Politics! We're no longer that naive to think that just because somebody is thumping the bible, that he couldn't be possibly using the bible as a shield! Daycares, Schools, Big brothers, Boy Scout.....they all promote values....but they're not immuned from attracting the perverts who would seek to get in such positions of power to satisfy their sick fantasies. I'm not sure why you're bringing up Clinton and anonymous ministers or priests. Whatever they did or do has nothing to do with Foley and his immorality, his dishonesty and hypocrisy, or the hypocrisy of his party in covering it up. Clinton paid for his idiocy, and now Foley is, as well. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Figleaf Posted October 6, 2006 Report Posted October 6, 2006 (edited) no surrender Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf Quote
betsy Posted October 6, 2006 Author Report Posted October 6, 2006 I'm not sure why you're bringing up Clinton and anonymous ministers or priests. Whatever they did or do has nothing to do with Foley and his immorality, his dishonesty and hypocrisy, or the hypocrisy of his party in covering it up. Clinton paid for his idiocy, and now Foley is, as well. But they all share the same thing: abuse of power and authority. Which was what I was saying, is, the real issue with this Foley affair. And with abuse of power and authority...of course, hypocrisy and dishonesty is part of the package. Especially in politics. Just shows that this has nothing to do with either being a Republican or Democrat. As for bringing Clinton in....I was responding about Lewinski. Quote
gc1765 Posted October 6, 2006 Report Posted October 6, 2006 Can you imagine if there was a D behind the name instead of an R? Fox news already tried that approach See the clip on the daily show Here (click on "fallout boy") Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
jbg Posted October 6, 2006 Report Posted October 6, 2006 My view on this is that Foley did the right thing by resigning. As far as Hastert goes, in the gaze of 20/20 hindsight he was wrong. Usually, a management instruction to cease and desist is obeyed. I cannot fault every managerial decision made, at least based on what I know now. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
M.Dancer Posted October 6, 2006 Report Posted October 6, 2006 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. If it was a 16 girl and Foley....? If it was your 16 year old and Foiley? If the boy was 16 and his suiter was 18 you would be right, everyone is over reacting.....as it is he's a sexual predator.......move on...... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Liam Posted October 6, 2006 Report Posted October 6, 2006 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!... 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?... 1. Thos who are most critical of Foley want the age of consent lowered to 14?! Where on earth did you pull this little nugget? Here in the US, as far as I know, there is absolutely no movement to lower the age of consent to 14 and the ones who are being most critical about the Foley issue are fellow Republicans. (OK, since they're Republicans, I'll concede that you are right -- most of them do want to get their hands on the 14 year olds.) 2. No, Lewinsky was not the ultimate case of abuse of power. Contemporary interviews of Monica showed a young woman who completely didn't get "it" that there was an enormous imbalance. Doris Kearns Goodwin, who once worked for LBJ was *shocked* that Lewinsky failed to understand that this-is-the-president and that Lewinsky was so blase about the sanctity of the office (not the Oval Office, but the executive office). She was not coerced or manipulated into having the affair. If anything, she was the predator with flashing her thong and making advances. I'm not excusing Clinton, but a May-August affair is considerably less coercive than a February-August affair. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.