ABC News: Pages ‘Sending All Sorts of Messages About Possible Other Members’

24

Comments

  • So Rush Limbaugh was actually insinuating on his show yesterday that this whole Foleygate thing may have been a long thought out plot by the Democrats... who BRAINWASHED these pages to SEDUCE Foley. Is this guy out of his flipping mind????

    Make your life a mission - not an intermission. - Arnold Gasglow
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    69charger wrote:
    One word:

    [size=+3]Chappaquiddick[/size]
    This just in. 69charger vicariously approves of man on boy sex between congressmen and underage pages provided they have an R next to their name.

    Or is it that you're equating a drunken car accident (involuntary) to a 50-odd year old man tasked with keeping sexual predators from propositioning underage boys and girls on the internet who then - sexually propositions underage boys on the internet (voluntary)?

    I say, someone sounds pissed; and not completely above using the Chewbacca defense.
  • 69charger wrote:
    The liberals are pounding this into the ground like thier shit don't stink. Last time I checked you liberals were big on the actions of the few do not represent the majority.
    Really? Wow...when did a Democrat controlled Congress attempt to cover up FELONIOUS activity within it's members to protect it's political power? Have there been Dems that have screwed up? Sure... but the fact that Dennis Hastert and John Boehner tried to sweep all this under the rug speaks VOLUMES about the ethical values our Republican controlled House holds.

    Make your life a mission - not an intermission. - Arnold Gasglow
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    DPrival78 wrote:
    looks like there's a chance we may be hearing more about congressman and pages.

    such wonderful people we have running our country. liars, murderers, torturers, pedophiles.. what a fine upstanding bunch.

    http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/02/pages-ross/


    this sounds bad. what scares me is the Dateline show with Chris Hanson. you can go to ANY community in this country and trick men into coming over to have sex with a minor. boy or girl doesnt matter.

    is this a bigger problem then people realize? how can this happen? and be so widespread?
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    69charger wrote:
    The liberals are pounding this into the ground like thier shit don't stink. Last time I checked you liberals were big on the actions of the few do not represent the majority.

    I have a real problem with your signature. What an ignorant and horrible thing to say about those w/ mental impairments and disabilities. You deserve a real kick in the ass for saying such a mean-spirited thing as that. Those w/ disabilities have a come a long way toward acceptance and inclusion and we have someone like you kicking them in the gut. You're disgusting.

    I have a daughter with Down syndrome. You're the kind of crap I have to deal with, when she might get picked on for being different.
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    69charger wrote:
    The liberals are pounding this into the ground like thier shit don't stink. Last time I checked you liberals were big on the actions of the few do not represent the majority.

    um...what's your point...? do you support pedophilia...?
  • jlew24asu wrote:
    this sounds bad. what scares me is the Dateline show with Chris Hanson. you can go to ANY community in this country and trick men into coming over to have sex with a minor. boy or girl doesnt matter.

    is this a bigger problem then people realize? how can this happen? and be so widespread?

    It really must be... I've seen a couple of those shows, and it seems like they are set up in random communities, and they get dozens of guys to do this type of thing after only a few hours. There are a lot of sick fucks out there... more than I have realized. You can look at some of those websites that map out where sex offenders live, and taking into consideration the number of unreported crimes, it really shows you that wherever you go, you come in contact with these types of people.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    Brink wrote:
    So Rush Limbaugh was actually insinuating on his show yesterday that this whole Foleygate thing may have been a long thought out plot by the Democrats... who BRAINWASHED these pages to SEDUCE Foley. Is this guy out of his flipping mind????

    To answer your question. Yes. Rush is out of his mind, that man has no idea even what he says. He contradicts himself so much it isn't even funny. What would he say if this were a congressman having a drug problem with prescription drugs...
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    darkcrow wrote:
    hey.. just wondering for some clarification.... what is the legal consensual age for homosexuals in the us?

    in the uk i think the govt changed it a few years ago from 18 down to 16 bringing it in line with hetrosexual relationships.

    It's different state by state. I'm not sure if DC has a separate age for homosexual relationships but the age of consent is 16. I actually think it's still deviant but, legally, it may not be wrong.
  • This could help answer some of the legal questions....


    FBI case against Foley explores legal 'gray area'
    Making a federal case out of sexually charged e-mail could prove difficult
    The Associated Press

    Updated: 8:29 a.m. ET Oct 4, 2006

    WASHINGTON - Former Rep. Mark Foley’s online conversations with teenage male pages have all the trappings of a political scandal, but making a federal case out of the sexually charged exchanges could prove difficult, veteran investigators say.

    Foley, a six-term Republican from Florida, resigned abruptly as his e-mails and instant message transcripts surfaced. The chats discussed sexual acts and possible meetings with pages, according to ABC News, which first reported them last week.

    With the FBI investigating Foley’s behavior, his defense attorney, David Roth, said that the congressman never had sex or attempted sexual contact with a minor. Foley, who is being treated for alcohol abuse, was drinking when he had the explicit conversations, Roth said.

    “Any suggestion that Mark Foley is a pedophile is false,” Roth said Tuesday at a news conference in West Palm Beach, Fla.

    If Foley never had sex with a congressional page, then his case is in uncertain legal territory, said Ken Lanning, a retired FBI agent who served as one of the agency’s leading experts on child exploitation.

    “There are going to be some issues here in the gray area,” Lanning said. “You may find this behavior repulsive, offensive or immoral. Whether it’s a violation of law will be based on a precise reading of the law.”

    Congressional leaders, who called for an FBI investigation as Foley resigned, turned to finger-pointing over who knew what about Foley’s behavior, when they knew it and whether anything was done to protect the teens.

    One federal law enforcement official said the FBI reviewed some Foley-related e-mail in July but concluded that no federal law had been violated. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the case is active, said agents are reviewing new evidence, including the instant message transcripts, to see if a law was broken.

    FBI spokesman Richard Kolko said the agency is continuing its assessment.

    In Florida, Roth said no law enforcement officials had contacted him. Foley has not been subpoenaed but voluntarily agreed not to delete any e-mails or instant messages from his computers, the lawyer said.

    Internet sex predator prosecution not so simple
    Some Democrats have claimed Foley might have violated the federal law used to prosecute Internet sex predators, but experts said it’s not that simple.

    On the surface, the chat transcripts released by ABC News look much like any of the explicit conversations the FBI has used as evidence in its many Internet sex stings. In those cases, however, the sexually charged talk led to an arrest when adults arrived for real sexual encounters.

    Graphic talk alone is rarely enough, said Joseph Dooley, a former agent who helped set up New England’s first FBI unit targeting Internet predators. Many adults engage in explicit chats with undercover agents but never show up for the scheduled meetings, he said.

    “We never charged anyone unless they actually traveled to have sex,” Dooley said.

    Investigators could consider federal obscenity laws, experts said, but the law prohibiting disseminating obscene material to children applies only to those under 16.

    Benjamin Vernia, a former federal prosecutor specializing in such cases, compared Foley’s online conversations with pages to “grooming,” a law enforcement term for the way sexual predators bring along their underage victims. Grooming is a red flag for authorities, Vernia said, but it’s rarely enough to bring charges.

    The question for federal investigators is whether Foley’s online chats ever led to real encounters. One chat transcript suggests Foley and a page had met in San Diego, but the chat doesn’t indicate what took place.

    Even if a sexual encounter occurred, however, that won’t necessarily be enough to lead to charges. It depends on how old the pages were at the time and what the age of consent was in that state.

    If a state law was broken and authorities can show Foley used the Internet to facilitate it, that could trigger federal jurisdiction, experts said.

    URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15126151/


    One question that I do have, are there criminal charges for sexual harrassment? From what I remember, I've only seen civil cases about it, but like was said before, if the pages are above the legal age of consent, there really isn't anything criminal that this creep did, besides sexual harrassment.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • 69charger69charger Posts: 1,045
    Jeanwah wrote:
    I have a real problem with your signature.

    That's great and you have every right to be offended by it. I've had it for years. It's not meant to be taken literally. It's a metaphor and some don't get it, others do.
    I have a daughter with Down syndrome. You're the kind of crap I have to deal with, when she might get picked on for being different.

    I hate to sound callous but that's human nature. Get used to it.

    I wish the best for you and your Daughter.
  • 69charger wrote:
    It's a metaphor and some don't get it, others do.

    Do you even know the definition of the word "metaphor"?
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    Do you even know the definition of the word "metaphor"?

    it doesn't appear so. I will echo the thought of it being tasteless.
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    69charger wrote:
    It's not meant to be taken literally. It's a metaphor and some don't get it, others do.
    yeah, explain that metaphor. The quote implies that there is no greatness in one who has mental disabilities, and makes fun of them. It's not funny. It's ignorant and cruel.
    I hate to sound callous but that's human nature. Get used to it.
    Only for people who refuse to accept people for who they are (who usually are, in turn, hateful people). It's not human nature to pick on others for being different, it's called a lack of self-esteem in one's self, and insecurity.

    Ignorance is the real disability, here.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    yes, yes he does.


    so people really are allowed to say whatever they want about someone? someone in the porch said they got banned for calling someone a lair. rules dont seem to apply in here.
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    jlew24asu wrote:
    so people really are allowed to say whatever they want about someone? someone in the porch said they got banned for calling someone a lair. rules dont seem to apply in here.

    Who's namecalling? If someone tries to shift blame from a pedophile to the "liberals doing it as well, so that must make it okay" mentallity, is suggesting it is okay to be a pedophile
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Who's namecalling? If someone tries to shift blame from a pedophile to the "liberals doing it as well, so that must make it okay" mentallity, is suggesting it is okay to be a pedophile


    well then the person you asked the question to should answer for himself.

    edit not you. inmytree
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    Who's namecalling? If someone tries to shift blame from a pedophile to the "liberals doing it as well, so that must make it okay" mentallity, is suggesting it is okay to be a pedophile


    that's my take on this, too...I was just asking for clarification...
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    inmytree wrote:
    that's my take on this, too...I was just asking for clarification...

    yea so he should clarify not someone else answering, yes he supports pedophillia.
  • RiverrunnerRiverrunner Posts: 2,419
    Shimkus is a fucking twat anyway, I can't stand that man. I hope that in 2 years that area of Illinois gets split up (I mean seriously, look at the 17th), and Costello and Shimkus have to run against one another. Jerry would kick his ass.

    I totally agree with you. I despise Shimkus. I called his office a month or so ago to ask how he stood on the horse slaughter ban that was being voted on. (There are only three horse slaughter houses in the country - 2 in Texas and 1 in Illinois. Most of the meat is shipped to France and Belgium for restaurants). An aid answered the phone and said "I don't know how he stands on the issue - we are having a meeting this morning about it." Lo and behold he votes against the ban. This was a bi-partisan bill to ban the slaughter of horses in this country. Republican Congressman Whitfield of Kentucky (a conservative) was a co-sponsor of the bill. I can think of no reason to support a horse slaughterhouse that ships meat to a foreign country. I didn't like him before this issue come up and this sealed the deal. Now add the "teenage page scandal" to his list of bad actions (or lack of action) and my dislike turns to disgust and contempt.
    The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals. Ghandi
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    jlew24asu wrote:
    yea so he should clarify not someone else answering, yes he supports pedophillia.

    well, if the evidence supports it, I don't see a problem with someone coming to that conclusion...
  • TaftTaft Posts: 454
    Breaking News: GOP CONGRESSIONAL AIDE KIRK FORDHAM FORCED OUT AMID QUESTIONS OVER WHETHER HE SUPPRESSED INFORMATION ABOUT FOLEY E-MAILS


    This is a classic tactic of the souless GOP. What will happen over the next few days is many aides and staff members of various GOP congressional members will be forced to resign in the wake of the Foley scandel, all under the guise that they supressed information from there bosses. This will allow the GOP to appear to be "cleaning house", without having any congressional members step down.
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    Taft wrote:
    Breaking News: GOP CONGRESSIONAL AIDE KIRK FORDHAM FORCED OUT AMID QUESTIONS OVER WHETHER HE SUPPRESSED INFORMATION ABOUT FOLEY E-MAILS


    This is a classic tactic of the souless GOP. What will happen over the next few days is many aides and staff members of various GOP congressional members will be forced to resign in the wake of the Foley scandel, all under the guise that they supressed information from there bosses. This will allow the GOP to appear to be "cleaning house", without having any congressional members step down.

    Are you against the aides being held accountable for actions that were solely their own? Many things like this would not be passed up to their bosses and you seem to be calling for the heads of innocent people? Is this really all politics to you?
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    tongue in cheek, dude

    get a clue


    I do have a clue thanks. calling someone a pedophile isnt tongue and cheek
  • TaftTaft Posts: 454
    zstillings wrote:
    Are you against the aides being held accountable for actions that were solely their own? Many things like this would not be passed up to their bosses and you seem to be calling for the heads of innocent people? Is this really all politics to you?

    Even taking it in a light most favorable to those bosses, i.e. that they were not told about the information (which is hard to believe).

    That is STILL not an excuse, they hired their aides and the buck stops at the top, they need to be held accountable for hiring wholly inadequate aides. The fact is that kids were in danger here and it was surpressed BECAUSE of politics, whether the aides told their bosses or not does not excuse them.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Taft wrote:
    Breaking News: GOP CONGRESSIONAL AIDE KIRK FORDHAM FORCED OUT AMID QUESTIONS OVER WHETHER HE SUPPRESSED INFORMATION ABOUT FOLEY E-MAILS


    This is a classic tactic of the souless GOP. What will happen over the next few days is many aides and staff members of various GOP congressional members will be forced to resign in the wake of the Foley scandel, all under the guise that they supressed information from there bosses. This will allow the GOP to appear to be "cleaning house", without having any congressional members step down.

    according to the link orignally posted, alot of heads might roll.
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    Taft wrote:
    Even taking it in a light most favorable to those bosses, i.e. that they were not told about the information (which is hard to believe).

    That is STILL not an excuse, they hired their aides and the buck stops at the top, they need to be held accountable for hiring wholly inadequate aides. The fact is that kids were in danger here and it was surpressed BECAUSE of politics, whether the aides told their bosses or not does not excuse them.

    It's not that hard to believe when you think about the happenings of Congress. Does a Congressman see every single piece of mail that is received by his office?

    These kids were over the age of consent in the city in which this was occurring so there is not legal basis for that.

    Does every Member who fires an employee have to step down? There wouldn't be any Democrats left either if that were the case.
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    zstillings wrote:
    It's not that hard to believe when you think about the happenings of Congress. Does a Congressman see every single piece of mail that is received by his office?

    These kids were over the age of consent in the city in which this was occurring so there is not legal basis for that.

    Does every Member who fires an employee have to step down? There wouldn't be any Democrats left either if that were the case.
    If you hired someone so abyssmally stupid that upon learning that a congressman was carrying on "naughty" correspondence with underage pages, and knowing that the congressman in question was the head of the committee on abused and exploited children, and knowing that the congressman in question was from the same party as you and could thus reflect badly on you, the president and other party members .... knowing ALL that, this genius does NOTHING ....

    .... I'm sorry, I can't even go on with this, because I don't think that any congressional aides are that dumb. If they knew, their bosses knew.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • TaftTaft Posts: 454
    zstillings wrote:
    It's not that hard to believe when you think about the happenings of Congress. Does a Congressman see every single piece of mail that is received by his office?

    These kids were over the age of consent in the city in which this was occurring so there is not legal basis for that.

    Does every Member who fires an employee have to step down? There wouldn't be any Democrats left either if that were the case.

    Wow. No, a congressman doesn't see every single piece of mail that comes to their office, nor should s/he. However, this particular information should have been presented to them and to argue otherwise is pathetic.

    Furthermore, yes in D.C. the age of consent is 16 yrs old, however, solicitation of sex from a child under the age of 18 is a crime under federal law. Regardless, having a congressman in his authoritative role soliciting teenage pages is a SERIOUS problem and there was a responsibility to act on this much sooner by those who knew. Their failure to do so was for political reasons and they should be held accountable with their jobs.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    i didn't call anyone anything

    i've been banned for stupid shit like that before, and i've seen the light


    right right. it's all "tongue in cheek" i got it
Sign In or Register to comment.