GOP Losers Circle Wagons For Child Predator

[BT]

No need to split hairs if the facts are on your side.

But you wouldn't know about that, would you?

The smoking gun is the IM's. You haven't shown that the GOP Leadership knew about them.

They did know about the emails to the kid in Louisanna. And that was nipped in the bud.

Like isaid. You have nothing but false bravado.

[Mucho]

No need to split hairs if the facts are on your side.

But you wouldn't know about that, would you?

The smoking gun is the IM's. You haven't shown that the GOP Leadership knew about them.

They did know about the emails to the kid in Louisanna. And that was nipped in the bud.

Like isaid. You have nothing but false bravado.

It of course is the only defense you have to define this in the narrowest way possible. The larger fact is that you who claim to be the great moral paragons are actually the biggest perverts. It is your hypocracy that stinks up the nation.

[Plane]

Republicans tend to leave when we learn of their scandals , even if they are President.


Democrats get away with more Rep. Studds did more than just talk to a page but was re-elected afterwards.


So is dimished expectations the problem?

And what exactly is Rep. Foley getting away with?

[Brassmask]

It is endlessly distressing to me how you guys will go out of your way to throw mud and whine about what others have done when your own are caught with their hands in the cookie jars over and over and over again.

Most.  Corrupt.  Government.  Ever.

Pedophiles and thieves and murderers.  All Republican.

[Mucho]

Republicans tend to leave when we learn of their scandals , even if they are President.


Democrats get away with more Rep. Studds did more than just talk to a page but was re-elected afterwards.


So is dimished expectations the problem?

And what exactly is Rep. Foley getting away with?

Not even you who is probly the most intelligent and humane of the RW nuts in herej, ust doesnt get it either. It isnt the crime, although Foley's pedophilia is beyond the normal scandal scope,. It is the hypocracy. You guys purport a moral superiority which I suppose is a cover for your craven greed , lust and sins.Foley was Chairman of the Committee that was to protect children like the ones he accosted. Even you would vomit at the meeting of pages at which Foley cried .
He might have a career in Hollywood now with his lack of morals and great acting ability.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2517754

[sirs]

If we're to apply knute's "deductive reasoning"       his claim is that the GOP are hypocrites becauase they dare espouse and advocate moral behavior, and when one of them strays from such and is condemned by all the GOP, they're still hypocrites because, hey, they're all supposed to be perfectly moral.  Which also apparently means, since Dems have no such a moral compass they advocate, it's perfectly ok for them to act as perverts, pedophiles, sexual harassers, drug pushers, perjerors, racists, and dare I say rapists, and its perfectly ok.  One can even can be re-elected, because .... well, because they don't advocate such moral behavior, so when they get caught doing such, it's no biggie.  Right?     

[Lanya]

Ill be damned there really IS a Rep Studds. Personal sex is no one elses business when it is between consenting adults, not when children are exploited by someone in power like you Repubs always like to do.
 I have always thought that it is because you guys are not comfortable with your sexuality which is why when it does come out ( sot to speak) it comes out perverted. I know you all would prefer to do tax cuts anyway!

Studds dated a page that was 17. Foley sent emails to a page that was 16. The age of consent in DC is 16, so both were adult relationships.

Either that or neither were.

Your choice.

via Glenn Greenwald:
[...]
For now, I will just note what seems to be the bizarre and incoherent contradiction in the law, noted by Atrios yesterday, that in-person, actual sex between Foley and a 16-year-old page would be perfectly legal in D.C. and in most places in the U.S. (see UPDATE below), but it seems that it is a criminal act for Foley to discuss or solicit sexual acts with the same page over the Internet. Despite all the irritatingly righteous (and overheated) "pedophile" language being tossed around, in the overwhelming majority of states, and in Washington DC, the legal age of consent for sex is 16 years old. That means that actual, in-person sex between Foley and a 16-year-old page in D.C. would not be criminal at all (though it likely could have other legal implications).

But under the so-called "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (of which Foley was a co-sponsor), along with 18 U.S.C. 2251, discussion or solicitation of sexual acts between Foley and any "minor" under the age of 18 would appear to be a criminal offense (see Adam Walsh Act, Sec. 111(14) ("MINOR.--The term 'minor' means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years") and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2256 (1) (“'minor' means any person under the age of eighteen years").
[.....]
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/gop-house-leadership-and-mark-foley.html

[BT]

The IM's took place in 2003. The Adam Walsh ACT was passd in 2006 and is not retroactive.

Greenwald is either an idiot or is being deliberately misleading.

Take your pick.

[BT]

Right before the old 3DHS crashed, there was a discussion about a bill in OHIO to create a civil registry of sex offenders. There was much wringing of hands about how reputations would be destroyed by creation of same. I mentioned that reputations are just as easily destroyed by the wolfpack mentality of the press and partisans when a story breaks to their advantage. I believe i was hooted at derisively. And then comes this.

No proof that the smoking gun IM's are real. No proof of child molestation at the hands of Foley. No proof that GOP leadership was aware of the alledged IM's and there is not a dem in the house that doesn't have blood dripping down their chins from this feeding frenzy.

Hat tip to UP for being consistent. The rest of you should be very proud of yourselves.

[Lanya]

I think he was speaking in the present tense.  "Is" and "would be"....would be , what's that, pluperfect? 

[Amianthus]

I think he was speaking in the present tense.

So why did you post it as a response to my post? Mine was addressing the specifics of the case, not a hypothetical, current-day situation.

[Lanya]

"The IM's took place in 2003. The Adam Walsh ACT was passd in 2006 and is not retroactive.

Greenwald is either an idiot or is being deliberately misleading.

Take your pick."

Amianthus: that's the post I was responding to. BT's post.  I tell you again, I have trouble navigating this forum.  I make a point, and if it is not in exactly the right spot...well, that's the way it is.

[Amianthus]

Amianthus: that's the post I was responding to. BT's post.  I tell you again, I have trouble navigating this forum.  I make a point, and if it is not in exactly the right spot...well, that's the way it is.

Your post quotes my post. Visit it here to see: http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=181.msg1408#msg1408 And besides, BT's post was after your's, so that can't be true.

[Lanya]

    
Re: GOP Losers Circle Wagons For Child Predator
« Reply #22 on: Today at 02:54:43 PM »
   Reply with quote
The IM's took place in 2003. The Adam Walsh ACT was passd in 2006 and is not retroactive.

Greenwald is either an idiot or is being deliberately misleading.

Take your pick.
 Posted by: Lanya
Insert Quote
I think he was speaking in the present tense.  "Is" and "would be"....would be , what's that, pluperfect?
Posted on: Today at 03:02:34 PM

My post is after BT's.

[Amianthus]

My post is after BT's.

Well, duh, that one was a response. I asked about your original post, to which BT responded. Did you bother to click on the link?