<<Show me anyone who's defending Foley's acts. It can't get any easier than that. Show us anyone who says what Foley did is best left to the privacy of Foley, that what he does in his own private life is no one else's business. >>
You keep missing the point, sirs. Nobody defended Foley's actions. The protection that was extended to him was in the inadequate response to what he did. Telling him to knock it off and then ignoring the problem is not a sufficiently zealous defence of the pages. It's more like a reluctance to press Foley, to cause a stink that might reflect back on the Party.
You seem to think that as long as they don't actually defend the guy, their handling of the situation was acceptable. But it's not. It's exactly like the shepherd who tells the wolf "Shoo! Go away!" and then retires for the night. He didn't defend the wolf. ("Show me anyone who defended Foley's act.") But whoever owns the sheep would be plenty pissed off to think that was ALL that the shepherd did in defence of the flock.
You just set a ridiculously lax standard for malfeasance. If Hastert had defended Foley, he'd be fair game. Unless he defended Foley, he doesn't deserve to be criticized. That's bullshit. Use the shepherd analogy and THINK about it for a minute.
<<While in this world, when a supposedly responsible man says he'll do better, without a pattern to go by . . . >>
Well, that's the problem right there, isn't it? There IS something to go by, a pattern if you will. A grown man, a powerful politician, DOES NOT ASK A 16-YEAR-OLD BOY WHO HE MET DURING THE KID'S TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT FOR A PHOTOGRAPH. Jesus Christ, what is wrong with you? Do you really think that is healthy normal behaviour? Is it something that YOU would do? You go around asking 16-year-old boys for their pictures? You know God-damn well that is sick, and the guy is a sicko. And they also could have sized up the vulnerability inherent in the relationship, adolescent gophers and powerful politicians. And to just tell the guy, "Knock it off" and walk away, with no attempt to see how far this sickness has gone, who it's affected - - even in Middle America, even with the dumbest of the dumb, the schmucks who swallowed Bush's Iraq lies and fabrications without a question or a murmur, this will not fly.
<<From that one event. such as.....harrasing women while at various levels of executive leadership, like let say State AG, then Governor, and then President, the reasonable expectation is that the man we'll stay true to his word, unlike the wolf who doesn't know better, or an egregious womanizer who can't keep it in his pants . . . >>
Despicable that you would seek to avoid the moral cu;pability of Dennis Hastert, who FAILED TO PROTECT MINORS, who took absolutely no effective steps to protect minors, apart from telling the aggressor to "knock it off" and then never raising the subject again - - by referring to Clinton's wholly consensual and heterosexual tryst with Monica. Harassing women? Excuse me? I thought it was MONICA who initiated the whole thing. You sure as hell didn't hear any complaints from Monica. She never e-mailed anyone that it was "sick sick sick sick sick." It is not gonna work - - people know, as you should, that there is no comparison between consensual adult sex and a pervert who harasses teenage boys. None at all.
<<Yet, THAT's what you, Brass, and Lanya keep implying is happening. [that Foley is radioactive so the wagons aren't circling HIM any more] Must be more of that upside down Tee tactic of no facts/evidence is proof . . . >>
Well, sirs, you tell me . . . are the Republicans still circling their wagons around Foley or have they pretty much left him to the wolves?
