La Cage Aux Foley

I certainly don't; the guy committed a federal felony by breaking a law he himself helped pass; Hastert and other key Republican leaders were fully notified of the issue but chose to bury it rather than investigate a federal crime.The guy's a criminal and a letch, and Boner, Reynolds, and Hastert gave their tacit approval to keep a Republican seat. And then they scrambled to lie about doing it, afterwards. I'd be just as pissed if these guys were all Democrats.I don't see anything hypocritical or homophobic about prosecuting a sexual predator for breaking the law. And a 40-year-old Congressman propositioning 16-year-old children is exactly that.

quote:

---

I have no problem with adult pornography. People are entitled to read it, watch it, see it in their homes or in public accommodations. Where I have to draw the line is using children for the excitement of those more mature people who should know the difference and know better." ” Mark Foley, 2002 interview

---

I'm sorry, a what? A quick Google search turns up only one hit for "tu quoi fallacy" - you, using it in a gay marriage thread on this website.I have no idea what you mean by a "tu quoi fallacy." ("You what"?) Do you mean tu quoque ("you too")? "Tu quoque" is the fallacy of defending one's own faulty reasoning or improper behavior by pointing out your opponents doing the same thing.But I have never illegally propositioned a minor for sex. So how could I possibly be using tu quoque? I have nothing to defend. No, the reason is because he was a powerful politician who drafted and passed legislation that clearly, he didn't believe he was obligated to obey. He believed he was above the laws he drafted for the rest of us. He did exactly what should be illegal, and is - using power, position, and age to coerece sexual activity from minors.I believe that's an immediate disqualification for leadership. Apparently you don't agree? Oh, sure. That hussy was asking for it, dressed as (s)he was.

Now, here's a very interesting question - why are both Fox News and the AP describing former Congressman Mark Foley as "D-FL"?

How so? I think hypocrisy is a disqualifying trait in a Congressman. Hence, it's completely relevant.You asked, as I recall:

quote:

---

Can someone please explain to me why this is such a big issue?

---

What you didn't ask was:

quote:

---

Can someone provide a logical syllogism proving how saying one thing and doing the opposite contravenes some agreed-upon natural law?

---

Pardon me, friend, for answering the question you actually asked. It's a big deal because people don't appreciate hypocrisy in their leaders. It's the one personal trait everybody, regardless of their opinion on morality, can agree is generally negative. Well, no, your question was, again:

quote:

---

Can someone please explain to me why this is such a big issue?

---

But the answer is, yes, he has done something illegal. It's a federal felony to proposition minors for sex via the internet, even if they're of consenting age where you live, or where they live. Foley himself was responsible for passing that law so he certainly should have known better. Anybody who excercises that kind of faulty judgement is unqualified to make Congressional-level decisions. It's more of a practical objection. Hypocrites aren't, as a rule, good leaders. People who delay floor votes to have cybersex with teens waste the government's time, waste my time, and clearly lackt he judgement to be effective leaders of the country. Oh, really? Do you think that they probably felt they could have offended a nationally-recognized Congressman in that manner without some form of retribution?Are you just naive, or what? I don't understand the kind of Doublespeak you're using in your mind that allows you to seperate his behavior from his responsibilities and power. This is a Congressman we're talking about. He chose to be one. That came with responsibilities that he abrogated.

1) A Congressman broke federal law and used his position to proposition minors for sex, and pressure them into sexual activity. (Cyber sex is a sexual activity.)2) The House leadership, informed of the problem, buried the issue rather than investigating a crime, like they're supposed to.Yea, I guess you're right. I can't honestly see the big deal when Congressmen commit sex crimes against minors, and their House leadership offers their tacit approval! Hey, what's the big deal? Call me when they're murdering people.

Oh? You talked to them? Assessed their mental status?Remember that this was a guy who the pages were warning each other to stay away from, so my guess is that everything wasn't exactly fun and games. A people who can see both sides of every issue except for the sexual exploitation of the underaged by the powerful.Iraq is complicated. Sexual misconduct is simple.

I'm sorry, but what makes you think you're someone I could possibly want to talk to? Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

I went back through the thread and I don't see anybody "caterwauling about those poor, damaged kids". Maybe you can point out the statements to which you are referring? My understanding of the law is that it's not necessary to prove epic levels of mental anguish to conclude that Mark Foley committed an illegal act of sexual predation.Here's Mark Foley in an email to one of the pages:

quote:

---

We will make you successful, as long as you don't mind me grabbing your [deleted] once in a while,

---

That's quid pro quo sexual harrassment, sexual coercion. Exactly what I was talking about. Foley used his power as a Congressman to coerce unwanted sexual contact from teens. That they weren't emotionally destroyed as a result is immaterial and irrelevant.The enthusiasm for sex with minors that Holmes and now you seem to radiate is quite creepy. Don't get me wrong. It's entirely possible for a legal adult to be in an equal relationship with a similarly-aged legal minor, and it's unfortunate in the extreme that our legal code prosecutes those relationships.But a powerful Congressman exploiting teens in his employ with veiled threats or promises of career rewards for his own sexual amusement, by definition, is not that relationship. It's a reprehensible abuse of power and anyone who so abuses should be removed and prosecuted; anybody who enabled that behavior should be investigated. Anybody who gave it their tacit approval - Hastert - should be castigated. Hey, here's a guy you might get along well with:

quote:

---

"As for the alleged abuse, it's time to ask some tough questions. First, there is a huge difference between being groped and being raped, so which was it Mr. Foley? Second, why didn't you just smack the clergyman in the face? After all, most 15-year-old teenage boys wouldn't allow themselves to be molested. So why did you?" - Catholic League president, Bill Donohue.

---

That bitch was just asking for it, wasn't she? If it had been rape she would have fought back. That slut. And the way she was dressed...

Who has, Berb? I don't see anyone in this thread who has resorted to crucifying Foley on religious grounds.He broke the law by soliciting minors for sex. Moreover he used his power as a Congressman to do so. He violated both the criminal laws that we're all subject to, as well as the code of ethics that applies to those with power.I don't see it as a witchhunt to point that out, or to urge that the leadership who knowingly helped him get away with it be investigated. Can you explain it to me?

Whether it is or isn't doesn't seem to me to be the topic of the thread. If this is what you wanted to discuss all along, you should have said so. Open a thread if that's the conversation you wanted to have.On the topic of this thread, the fact that the law might be based in one person's subjective morality is irrelevant, because as one of the supporters of the legislation, the law was based in Foley's morality. If he thought it was morally proper to solicit 16-year-olds for sex, he shouldn't have supported legislation to make it illegal. You continually, and inaccurately, seem to protray this as just innocent flirting between two adults.When I was 16 I was living in Italy, and I'd traveled pretty extensively before that. So I was no sheltered teen, by any stretch of the imagination. And I have no difficulty imagining that, as a 16-year-old, if I had had a boss who was also a very powerful politicial figure, and that boss made it abundantly clear that my future career rested entirely on my decision to allow him to fondle me sexually, I would have found that a very disturbing, a very violating experience.The kind of dichotomous experience that divides your life into two sections - before and after. And you're trying to tell me this was just harmless fun? This was sexual predation. Well, Mark Foley did. Obviously we can debate about whether or not anybody should be held to anybody else's standard. But surely there can be no debate that Mark Foley should be held to his own standard? Why? If he covered up a crime and then lied about it, which he has certainly done, why should he be allowed to remain in the most powerful position in the Congress? Remember that this is a guy that's only one pretzel and one heart attack from the highest office in the land. So, you don't defend Foley, but you don't think what he did was wrong; you don't think Hastert should resign but you support calls for his resignation?I don't get it.

I'll respond merely to remind you that you continue to be a participant that I have absolutely no wish to discuss anything with.

Oh, I'm reading; it's from reading your posts that I know how schitzophrenic your position is on this issue.Look, Berb. You're determined to stand in the middle and toss stones at both sides. I don't really have the time to waste on that kind of wankery.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

From your boss? Who was a Congressman?Did he ever offer to put you up for the night if you'd suck his cock? Offer to advance your career in exchange for sex? Foley did. I was no sheltered teen myself - at 16 I was living in Italy and was already quite well-traveled - but there's no doubt in my mind that I would have found that situation - the situation of powerlessness and perhaps inevitable sexual coercion - rather disturbing.I don't for a minute - for a minute - understand the minds of the people who are able to seperate the sex from the power. They're inextricable. Being sexually propositioned by your boss, who is one of the most powerful men in the country, is significantly different than random propositioning from homosexual strangers or whatever.

My read on your posts is pretty damn accurate, which is why I imagine you're resorting to playground name-calling instead of a legitimate rebuttal. I said that because that's exactly what you said. You denied harm; therefore you assert it was harmless. You denied that the pages were children; therefore you assert they were adults.You've criticized absolutely everybody who offered an objection to the behavior of an old man sexually propositioning teenagers. Obviously, you support old men sexually propositioning teenagers.I mean, that's the obvious conclusion. What else am I supposed to think? Over here on my side of the fence, where I think it's wrong for people to abuse the inherent power involved in being much, much older than their quarry (not to even mention the man's professional status), I'm getting stones tossed from the direction of those who see no issue inherent in sexual activity between adults and minors. Maybe that's not where you stand.But the fact that your salvos follow that exact trajectory is your problem, not mine. Like I said, what you're doing is wankery. Debate masturbation. It's a waste of everybody's time. Nonsense. These things are exactly what you said. What, you want me to quote you? Here we go.

quote:

---

I don't see the case that making a pass at a 16-year-old would likely cause damage to the youngster.

---

"Making a pass", synonymous with "flirting"; "I don't see the case for damage" synonymous with "harmless." My description of your stance as viewing this as "harmless flirting" is entirely accurate because that's almost exactly what you said.You don't oppose harmless flirting. Since that's what you said Foley did, you don't oppose what Foley did. (What, you were talking about hypothetical passes at hypothetical teens? Bullshit you were.) The fact that you continually pepper your posts with "I'm not defending Foley" is the same kind of smokescreen racists and bigots use when they say "now, some of my best friends are black/gay."It's just weasel words. Of course you're defending Foley. You clearly have no problem when an older man sexually propositions minors. You've relentlessly attacked anybody who does have a problem with that. The fact that you say "I'm not defending Foley" as you defend him is just nonsense. Of course I didn't take those statements literally.If you have a problem with someone seeing through your fairly transparent weasel language, take it up with the man in the mirror. It's hardly my fault I'm not stupid enough to take your ridiculous smokescreen at face value.