Regards,

JohnD

If the “values voters” stay home Nov. 7, that’s it, OK? The Republican Congress is over, history, toast. If it takes drastic action to appease the “value voters,” then the GOP had better get real drastic, real quick. It’s either “Goodbye, Speake…

Derrick – And can we stop with the pedophilia/not-pedophilia argument. 18 is the age of adult. What he may have done may not fit the statute in the jurisdiction where the incident happened, but he did do it with a CHILD..

When I was a high school junior and senior –several of those 16 year-old, eager, willing, sexually mature female “children” did amazing things to this here “kid”!! With verve, positions I’d never seen before, and stamina!

The point is that society has decided, quite reasonably, that large age disparities and the lure of good-looking adolescents don’t go together – it’s harmful as courts and psychologists have stated to a young person’s development, can leave lasting damage, it’s against just about all parental wishes who are legal guardians – so we create legal and organizational boundaries. And make even tougher and more punitive laws and boundaries for authority figures attracted to jailbait, since they have undue influence and can pressure susceptible minors.

But don’t infantilize adolescents. They are not “children”….

Most 16-year olds have had sexual encounters, serious “necking” at least – if not oral or intercourse, and it is normal and healthy for most well-balanced teens as long as the relationship is not inappropriate, and as long as it is not overly promiscuous and/or casual and the teens involved and others are not placing a low status on them for doing so..

But we all agree that pederasty, a 52-year old chasing a 16-year old’s tail, or just about any sexual relationship with someone in the early teens or younger is wrong at a minimum, illegal in most circumstances..

Glamchild – Either an individual is over 18, or he/she isn’t.

Either something is illegal, or it isn’t.

You are the one who needs to look up consent and statutory rape laws. And why most states say there is nothing illegal about a sexual relationship between 15, 16,17,18 year olds in high school. If it was a major crime, even a minor one, half the American population who are in or who have been through HS are sex offenders.

Randy – The vast majority of gay men have no interest in sex with underage boys, at least no more than straight men have interest in sex with underage girls.

Sorry Randy, I read that and thought it was a reprise of “The vast Majority of Muslims are peaceful and moderate and know that Jihad merely refers to the tranquil inner struggle of spiritual attainment..Islam is no more violent than Christianity.”

Gays ARE different than straights in the long, time-honored practice of pederasty – man-boy love – which is a strong homosexual preference expressed across a wide range of cultures ancient and modern. In some societies, this gay preference for smooth young boys was pervasive and accepted (Greece, 18th century China, various Muslim Caliphates). And the interest is clear in our society, where stats show a homosexual is 5-7 times more likely to engage in underage sex than straights, and with 7X the number of average victims than a hetero man pursuing underaged girls – according to DOJ study released after the Catholic Priest scandal. The phrase “chickenhawk” refers to the numerous gays that chase their little chickens…it is actually an old European term on this fairly widespread gay predeliction. Gays need to be open and acknowledge it is a significant problem among gay older men. And in gay propaganda, notorious pederasts like Oscar Wilde are treated as victims of “Victorian intolerance” – something now even showing up in US school textbooks as “Oscar the brilliant, laid low by hate” theme. There is a definite push by the Gay Lobby to make pederasty more acceptable. [It is important to distinguish. Pedophile is gay or straight attraction to prepubescents 12 or under, legally. Pederasty refers to gay men significantly older than their targets – boys 12-19, and differs from straight men chasing jailbait in several behaviors and conventions unless the chickenhawk is just seeking quick gratification from a boy prostitute..

Simply awesome.

#63. “You simply don’t go around accusing people of attempted child solicitation without more proof.”

Welcome to the blogistan.

What’s the most basic issue that goes back to the days way before there were political parties? Back to prehistoric times? Protecting your family. Protecting your kids. And, if you don’t have kids, protecting kids.

An…

I’m a Liberal Democrat (and proud of it) and I agree with you Nikki. The “overly friendly” emails, as they are being called, are not enough proof. But I think the rub is what did the GOP do or, more importantly, not do?

So far the only thing they acknowledge doing is telling him – “Leave that boy alone.” I think if they had taken any other steps they would have mentioned them by now.

Did anyone even ask him if he had been in contact with other pages? Did anyone ask any of current or ex-pages confidentially if ANYONE on the Hill made them uncomfortable (as in sick, sick, sick)? Did they even give Foley the impression that they were seriously worried about how his behavior might look with the elections not far off? Did they do anything besides tell him – “Stop that!”

If you tell a predator to stop, of coures, they won’t. If you ignore warning signs and just hope that nothing happens, then congratulations – you’re an enabler.

That’s what really scares the GOP leadership right now – as the story unfolds will the people on the street see them as innocent, negligent, complict or will they be seen as aiding and abetting.

As the experts say – People may not understand the Abramoff money trail, but they understand a sex scandal. And a gay pedophile sex scandal might have them saying – to hell with them all.

And we haven’t even got around to discussing how this will affect them with their base. A lot of sensible, decent GOP’ers might stay home in November just out of disgust.

If you get weird instant messages, you just copy and paste it into a document and save – just as I cut and pasted your comment, and added quotes around it.

Since some of the victims reported the messages to others, it would be relatively easy for a reporter to ask around and find the boys.

I think it was a reporter, news source that broke the story and not a “group” out to get him as you suggest.

Oatney and myself have called for the resignation of House Speaker Dennis Haster

Ex-Congressman Mark Foley is a scumbag, and deserves every bad thing he gets. But the calls for Dennis Hastert, and other Representatives, to resign are premature. Hastert says he never knew about Foley’s attempted pederasty until the story was …

==============

I am a Liberal Democrat (and proud of it) and I agree with you Nikki – the “over-friendly” emails are not enough alone. But I think the proof will be in what the GOP didn’t do.

Did they even they ask him if he had been emailing other pages?

Did they ask for permission from Foley to check the Congressional servers for who he may have been sending unsolicited emails to? Not the content of the messages, but the headers. Even if he refused you wouldn’t force him, but did anyone ask if he would volunteer to let them?

Did anyone call in some of the pages and ask them confidentially if ANYONE on the Hill paid undue attention to them? If there was any buzz about any particular person?

If you tell predator to stop, of course they don’t. If you ignore the warning signs and hope that nothing happens then congratulations – you’re an enabler.

Now I wonder about those that held onto the IMs. After all, we’re being told that somebody has been “shopping” these IMs to reporters for a while now. I’ve heard “months” being tossed around. (From the Foley campaign, I believe.) This person/these people should have federal charges brought against then for failing to report child abuse. I recall how the blogosphere spit upon that Watergate guy, who reported the fiasco to a reporter instead of the police or a justice authority. I see parallels between these two.

Frankly, I can’t figure out how this information would have been collected by a group to release it. How many sources are producing/releasing these IMs? I’d like to learn more about the big picture.

But they did nothing of the sort. What should that tell you? First, it should tell you that all this anti-gay rhetoric that the party has been feeding y’all these past few years is just talk. They don’t really mean it. They are playing you for fools, just to get your vote.

Don’t believe me? Well, the most anti-gay senator in the Senate is without a doubt Rick Santorum. He has denouced homosexuality as corrupt, immoral, a disgrace upon the society, and so on. And yet, he has an openly gay communications director.

And this is how it is in congress. I live and work on Capitol Hill, and I can tell you that no place in Washington is more cruisy than the halls of congress. when I first came here, I heard stories that half the congressional staffers are gay, and you dismiss those as exaggerations. But it’s true! Or it seems it – so many people are gay, whether openly, in the closet or simply in denial. How do I know? I’m a manager with the local gay and lesbian filmfest that we hold her annually, and I see a lot of the same faces. Plus I go to the gay bars and see them there as well.

So you have been duped. You thought that the Republicans were taking principled stands for the family and so on (For the record, I think you can be pro-gay and pro-family, certainly) when in fact they were just using you. And here’s the proof — when push comes to shove, retaining power is more important than any rhetoric, no matter how much it gets out the vote.

Of course, I get a little bit of sheudenfreude, or what ever that German word is. In my opinion, the Repubs started a reprehensible campaign against gays and lesbians, so I’m quite happy that this has come to bite them in the butt. But, of course, I’m not too happy with our Democratic side either, so I shouldn’t get too giddy.

The Washington Times is calling on Hastert to resign, so you know this is bad. But at the very least, the Repubs are going to have a VERY difficult time bashing gays and trumpeting their moral superiority over liberals. And that’s a good thing.