View Full Version : US Republican Politician Solicits Sex
Noelys Guitar
02/10/2006, 1:17 PM
Mark Foley a Republician congressman from Florida has just help lose the congress and possibly the senate to the Democrats. He had been emailing teenage pages(congress messengers) with obscene requests. The dirtbag had already been outed by parents but this was coverd up by other top Repubicians. I would not be surprised if this goes all the way to Bush. Watch this story develop.
dahamsta
02/10/2006, 1:28 PM
It's all over the shop.
http://news.google.ie/news?q=foley
I doubt it'll bring down Bush, but he's already well on the way to doing that himself anyway. It could certainly lose the GOP everything - the Senate, the House, the Presidency - for a term or two. There was a major cover-up here, a very bad one.
adam
strangeirish
02/10/2006, 1:29 PM
This is the same a/hole that spoke out against this type of stuff last year and called for more severe penalties against sexual predators. I hope he gets what he deserves. Sick Bas***d. The spin has already begun. He's checking into rehab now for treatment of alcohol abuse.:rolleyes:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/15646317.htm
First one I found in google
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/15646317.htm
Thats going to kill the Repubs alright. Can't see how will affect Bush directly as he has no more elections. A Democratic majority in the Senate & Congress would make Bush a lame duck for next 2 years though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Mark_Foley_scandal
As ever, wikipedia can give a good general run down of events. Unbelievable given the committee he heads.
Noelys Guitar
02/10/2006, 1:58 PM
Democratic house and senate will lead to Bush impeachment.
Democratic house and senate will lead to Bush impeachment.
highly unlikely mate.
drinkfeckarse
02/10/2006, 2:40 PM
Democratic house and senate will lead to Bush impeachment.
I'm with Dodge on this although I'm interested to hear why you think Bush would be impeached NG? Unless he has been given information on the situation then it would seem he has nothing to do with this matter unless you take the line of how technically he is in charge of this mob therefore the top man should fall.
That's as likely as George Michael giving up his hash pipe though.
osarusan
02/10/2006, 3:04 PM
I think the overreaction to this has been unbelievable.
Foley sent 'lurid' messages to a sixteen year old page, or messenger.
16 years old - paedophilia it isnt. I'd like to know the average of first sexual experience in the USA, or even an upright moral country like Ireland. 16 year olds are usually quite experienced.
Dare I say it, if he had been sending the same kind of emails to a female, it wouldn't have been such a big problem.
Should he resign? Yes
Should we feel he has behaved wrongly? Yes
Should the FBI be investigating? God No.
If you arrested every middle-aged man who tried to get laid with a teenager you would arrest millions.
It is the (badly executed) cover-up that will do any real damage.
Noelys Guitar
02/10/2006, 3:07 PM
Sorry. Should have explained myself more clearly. I believe he will be impeached on his misleading the US into war. And having his own party covering up for Pedos makes that much easier to do. Also watch out for the re-emergence of the Jeff Gannon (male prostitute) story who was given WH press access by Karl Rove as if Gannon was a journalist. This was not covered by the US media first time round . Also George seniors white house was also embroiled in a male prostitute scandal back in 1989. Here are the links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/01/white-house-child-sex-ring.html
osarusan
02/10/2006, 3:08 PM
Sick Bas***d.
Honestly, I dont see how he is a sick bast@rd.
I can see how it is wrong, and makes people uncomfortable or angry, but 'sick'?
I am only 27 years old, but I find some teenagers attractive.
Just because he is middle-aged doesnt mean he loses his 'desire'.
Again, dare I say it, is the outrage the same as it would be if he had sent his messages to a female?
BohsPartisan
02/10/2006, 3:12 PM
16 years old - paedophilia it isnt. I'd like to know the average of first sexual experience in the USA, or even an upright moral country like Ireland. 16 year olds are usually quite experienced.
.
Legally it is Paedophellia. Age of Consent in the US is 18.
Noelys Guitar
02/10/2006, 3:19 PM
Osarusan Foley was the head of the exploited childrens network in the US until he resigned on Friday. Ironically he will be prosecuted under the very laws which he introduced.
osarusan
02/10/2006, 3:19 PM
I know that legally 18 is the age of consent.
At what age would you consider a teenager to be sexually aware and able to make their own decisions?
The image in the media is that Foley was 'preying' on this innocent young flower of youth.
Excerpts of messages, which show the young guy replying in kind to Foley's remarks, definitely contradict this.
strangeirish
02/10/2006, 3:20 PM
Honestly, I dont see how he is a sick bast@rd.
Male or female osarusan, sick in the sense that he is co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus. He was intimating a desire for a sixteen year old and no doubt would have acted on that desire given the opportunity. And that my friend, is sick in my book.
osarusan
02/10/2006, 3:21 PM
Osarusan Foley was the head of the exploited childrens network in the US until he resigned on Friday. Ironically he will be prosecuted under the very laws which he introduced.
I know he was.
My point is that, however hypocritical he was, and however morally wrong his actions were, he is not a 'sick b@stard' and he is not 'exploiting children'.
dahamsta
02/10/2006, 3:22 PM
Legally it is Paedophellia. Age of Consent in the US is 18.It's not paedophilia, it's grooming.
I think the overreaction to this has been unbelievable.The problem isn't the grooming itself, and trying to paint it as that and that alone is a GOP-style attempt at distraction. If you want to defend the GOP, feel free; but defend their covering this up, which is the primary concern.
GOP-style politicking won't be tolerated here, it will condidered trolling and dealt with in the same way.
adam
osarusan
02/10/2006, 3:26 PM
Male or female osarusan, sick in the sense that the is co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus. He was intimating a desire for a sixteen year old and no doubt would have acted on that desire given the opportunity. And that my friend, is sick in my book.
I'm not trying to defend the guy in any way, I'm happy when any Republican loses their seat for any reason, and I think the level of hypocracy is amazing, but I dont think the labels of "paedophile" and "sick b@stard" are warranted.
By your rationale, any person over 18 who intimated a desire for a sixteen year old would be termed "sick".
I dont believe this is the case.
strangeirish
02/10/2006, 3:31 PM
I know he was.
My point is that, however hypocritical he was, and however morally wrong his actions were, he is not a 'sick b@stard' and he is not 'exploiting children'.
I have to disagree. Anyone under the age of 18 in the US is considered a minor or child, legally. A man in his position, is, in my opinion, abusing his power and using that power to exploit children.
osarusan
02/10/2006, 3:33 PM
If you want to defend the GOP, feel free; but defend their covering this up, which is the primary concern.
GOP-style politicking won't be tolerated here, it will condidered trolling and dealt with in the same way.
adam
I dont want to defend the GOP in any way, and I think the cover-up is disgraceful.
All I want to say is that I think the terms "paedophilia" and "sick b@stard" are over-reaction.
All pages are at least 16 years old.
I think that the general opinion on an age where sexual activity would be considered paedophilia would be younger than that.
Of course the fact that it is the general opinion doesnt automatically make it right, but it seems to me that many who are outraged are more outraged by their political ethics than their moral ethics.
osarusan
02/10/2006, 3:38 PM
I have to disagree. Anyone under the age of 18 in the US is considered a minor or child, legally. A man in his position, is, in my opinion, abusing his power and using that power to exploit children.
Obviously my arguement is weakened by the fact that sex with anybody under 18 is illegal.
However I think there is clearly a big difference, if not legally, then morally, with having sex with a person who is 17 years and 10 months old, as opposed to someone who is 12 years old.
If I heard of somebody who was middle-aged sleeping with a 17 year old, I would not be pleased, and I might be disgusted by the dirty old man, but I would not think 'paedophile', and I doubt many others would either.
dahamsta
02/10/2006, 3:40 PM
I dont want to defend the GOP in any way, and I think the cover-up is disgraceful.Why don't you think the FBI should be investigating then?
strangeirish
02/10/2006, 3:44 PM
By your rationale, any person over 18 who intimated a desire for a sixteen year old would be termed "sick".
The guy is 52 and is basically soliciting someone who is under the legal age to have consentual sex. Do you not think there is something wrong with that?
osarusan
02/10/2006, 3:45 PM
I dont think a randy old guy sending suggestive messages to a teenager who answers with similar messages is a case for the FBI.
Based on the quote from my post that you included, I guess you feel that I want the whole thing to go away, which I dont. I think he should go, and I think any cover-up attempt should be exposed, but I feel there is no need for the FBI.
osarusan
02/10/2006, 3:46 PM
The guy is 52 and is basically soliciting someone who is under the legal age to have consentual sex. Do you not think there is something wrong with that?
wrong yes, paedophiliac, no.
BohsPartisan
02/10/2006, 4:26 PM
I'm not trying to defend the guy in any way, I'm happy when any Republican loses their seat for any reason, and I think the level of hypocracy is amazing, but I dont think the labels of "paedophile" and "sick b@stard" are warranted.
By your rationale, any person over 18 who intimated a desire for a sixteen year old would be termed "sick".
I dont believe this is the case.
I totally agree with you, however I think the point is that the GOP is seen a morally conservative "family values" party and like the Tories in the 80's in Britain, are shown up as hypocrites.
On age of consent and all that, I believe the laws here and elsewhere are archaic and need to be looked into. Any change in law though should not be hasty as this years absurd raising the roof to 17 years was and should take place in consultation with young people.
osarusan
02/10/2006, 4:37 PM
I totally agree with you, however I think the point is that the GOP is seen a morally conservative "family values" party and like the Tories in the 80's in Britain, are shown up as hypocrites.
On age of consent and all that, I believe the laws here and elsewhere are archaic and need to be looked into. Any change in law though should not be hasty as this years absurd raising the roof to 17 years was and should take place in consultation with young people.
Fully agree with you about the hypocracy of the whole thing.
Also, the GOP, as the party of family values, will want to distance themselves from any 'errant' activity by a homosexual.
Aslo, this is worth taking a look at.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America
Spain is 13!!
strangeirish
02/10/2006, 5:48 PM
I dont think a randy old guy sending suggestive messages to a teenager who answers with similar messages is a case for the FBI.
The only reason the FBI are involved is to see if he violated any federal laws. As to what laws they may be looking at, I don't know.
I would have to assume solicitating a minor for sex is a crime in the US given the age of consent there seems to be 18? I am sure its different crime than actually having sex with a 16 year old but in politics I am sure it hardly matters. I would assume the FBI involved as was cross state.
As a party of so called family values I am sure some Repubs will get crucified at the polls. The fact that they so close to the actual voting seems this will probably dominate the political campaign & lose votes for Repubs across the board. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of politicians, in no way would I feel sorry for them.
strangeirish
02/10/2006, 6:45 PM
I would have to assume solicitating a minor for sex is a crime in the US given the age of consent there seems to be 18? .
It's a felony.
CollegeTillIDie
03/10/2006, 5:35 AM
Ok guys interesting story. Can someone send an e-mail to therighthook@newstalk106, so George Hook can ask Michael Graham, Repulican hack and US Broadcaster who contributes to his shows on a Friday?
strangeirish
04/10/2006, 3:09 AM
The spin (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061004/ap_on_go_co/congressman_e_mails) continues. Now he claims to have been abused by a clergyman when he was a teenager. That, on top of the alcohol treatment. Funny how these guys open up about their 'problems' when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. I'm sure he was just being over-friendly with those e-mails and had no bad intentions and if he did, the beer made him do it.:rolleyes:
osarusan
04/10/2006, 11:02 AM
The fact that he has been whisked off to a rehab camp, presumably to be silenced until the GOP can come up with a uniform defense.
This has happened before, on both Republican and Democrat sides.
RogerMilla
04/10/2006, 11:12 AM
i am pretty sure that sex with a minor in the US is an offence and known as statutory rape.
personally i dotn think he is a pedrophile ( thanks father ted!!) but he is obviously completely in the wrong and will no doubt get off lightly like all these GOP transgressors seem to do
Watching the CBS news last night they made it look like some sort of gay conspiracy saying he was a closet homosexual & that his actions had been covered up by gay staffers. I think they were trying to deflect attention from the House Speaker who appointed him to that position & apparently knew about his online activity a year ago.
Dodge
04/10/2006, 12:51 PM
Story was initially broke by the gay press.
Noelys Guitar
04/10/2006, 3:36 PM
The Republicians are going to hold their next convention in Thailand.
cheifo
04/10/2006, 5:29 PM
I t reported this story on ABC world news and had some worrying footage of Foley giving an emotional speech(he was crying) to some young pagers about respecting their parents etc.I have to say you would not have to be paticularly judgemental to think he is unbalanced.The fact that there were complaints made about him which were not acted on suggests a cover up.
it also reported stories of other inapropriate incidents invovling civil servants and pagers.Seems like it would be a good idea to push the age requirement to be a pager up to 18.
ken foree
04/10/2006, 6:05 PM
Watching the CBS news last night they made it look like some sort of gay conspiracy saying he was a closet homosexual & that his actions had been covered up by gay staffers. I think they were trying to deflect attention from the House Speaker who appointed him to that position & apparently knew about his online activity a year ago.
i actually think it's a karl rove design. ABC news confirmed that someone on the republican side of the aisle revealed the transcripts about foley to them. in turn, the GOP now gets to further conflate homosexuality (obviously a Democrat cause) and pedophilia, just in time for congressional elections around the corner. already the news media are spinning it this way, with banners and 'talking point' graphics posing the "homosexuality = pedophilia??" non-question. sickening really. rove pulled a similar "ace" out of his sleeve before the 2004 national elections where he managed to get gay marriage bills on the ballot in something like 20 states. this, in turn, mobilized 3 million christian conservative voters and this was about the size of the popular vote difference between bush and kerry.
First
06/10/2006, 12:16 PM
I know that legally 18 is the age of consent.
At what age would you consider a teenager to be sexually aware and able to make their own decisions?
The image in the media is that Foley was 'preying' on this innocent young flower of youth.
Excerpts of messages, which show the young guy replying in kind to Foley's remarks, definitely contradict this.
Osarusan , I have a 17 year old daughter and if I caught a 27 year old sniffing around I would not be responsible for my actions.
BohsPartisan
06/10/2006, 12:44 PM
Osarusan , I have a 17 year old daughter and if I caught a 27 year old sniffing around I would not be responsible for my actions.
Thats understandable as a parent but think back to when you were 17 and I'm sure you got up to lots of things you wouldn't like to think of your daughter getting up to. Of course I am making the assumption you had a life when you were 17. ;)
Thats understandable as a parent but think back to when you were 17 and I'm sure you got up to lots of things you wouldn't like to think of your daughter getting up to. Of course I am making the assumption you had a life when you were 17. ;)
Bohs, I had a great youth , wild and varied, and I know that my daughter is enjoying herself, within reason, as she should when she is young, the point I am making is that she is doing this with her own age group.
Older blokes who see girls of an age like my daughter as fair game really are a bunch of sad *******s who were more than likely left behind when they should have been having their day in the sun so to speak.
I make a point of reminding my daughter of this fact often.
osarusan
06/10/2006, 2:38 PM
Osarusan , I have a 17 year old daughter and if I caught a 27 year old sniffing around I would not be responsible for my actions.
Older blokes who see girls of an age like my daughter as fair game really are a bunch of sad *******s who were more than likely left behind when they should have been having their day in the sun so to speak.
I make a point of reminding my daughter of this fact often.
Will you please read what I've posted before you criticise it.
I've said the guy was wrong, I've said he deserves to lose his job, I've said that he was/is morally wrong, but I don't think he is a paedophile.
That's all I've said.
I'm sure that you would be angry if a 27 year old was 'sniffing around' your daughter, but it isnt relevant to what I posted.
BohsPartisan
06/10/2006, 2:39 PM
Theres a difference though between a bloke who goes exclusively for women that are much younger and someone who is interested in a particular individual regardless of an age gap. Most 17 year olds have a decent amount of cop on and as long as everything is consentual then its ok in my book.
[QUOTE=osarusan;547972]Will you please read what I've posted before you criticise it.
I've said the guy was wrong, I've said he deserves to lose his job, I've said that he was/is morally wrong, but I don't think he is a paedophile.
That's all I've said.
I apologise I took you out of context but as the legal age in America is 18 , where to you draw the line.
osarusan
06/10/2006, 3:56 PM
I apologise I took you out of context but as the legal age in America is 18 , where to you draw the line.
No worries, it's just I've got a lost of stick for this.
Where do you draw the line? I don't know, but in a previous post I said that we have to ask when a young woman (or man, for that matter) becomes sexually aware. Also I posted the Ages of Consent link from Wikipedia, which showed that Spain's age of consent is 13. Now, that is sick.
While clearly he is legally wrong, I wonder how the age of consent was arrived at and if it is accurate. With people naturally maturing at different rates, no age will always be correct, and I guess it is better to err on the side of caution.
liam88
06/10/2006, 4:16 PM
In affect though it is paedophilia (although not by a dictionary definition). Osarusan you say lots of men find teenagers attractive but there is a definitive difference between looking at a teenager thinking "he/she is attractive but I am 52 and he/she is 16" and actually acting on it. He is sick -end of story. He is grooming someone below the legal age of consent and at a rediculousy huge age gap. I don't see how any 52 year old sending illicit messages to a 16 year old can ever be viewed as anything other the paedohpilia and an illegal and sick action.
osarusan
06/10/2006, 4:42 PM
In affect though it is paedophilia (although not by a dictionary definition). Osarusan you say lots of men find teenagers attractive but there is a definitive difference between looking at a teenager thinking "he/she is attractive but I am 52 and he/she is 16" and actually acting on it. He is sick -end of story. He is grooming someone below the legal age of consent and at a rediculousy huge age gap. I don't see how any 52 year old sending illicit messages to a 16 year old can ever be viewed as anything other the paedohpilia and an illegal and sick action.
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophilia
Pedophilia or paedophilia (see spelling differences) is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent or peripubescent children. Persons with this attraction are called pedophiles.
In contrast to the generally accepted medical definition, the term pedophile is also used colloquially to denote significantly older adults who are sexually attracted to adolescents below the local age of consent,[1] as well as those who have sexually abused a child.
Prepubescent or peripubescent children. Not 16 year olds.
Please note the second paragraph, which in effect reads, "some people think it means being interested in underage people, but they are basically wrong."
Liam, I have said it was illegal, (although I heard on CNN today that the age of consent in Washington D.C is 16) and I have said it was wrong, but it is not paedophilia.
I'd rather support medical experts' definition of paedophilia than yours.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.