Sneer on Mr. Bricker. Sneer on.

[elucidator]

Hell, I thought he was too smart to read Ann Coulter, much less quote the transgendered harridan! Wrong again.

[Caridwen]

[QUOTE=Scylla]
Yes. That is in fact the scandal presented to us for consumption in our regularly scheduled October surprise, and it is assumed we are too stupid to remember Mr. Studds or the ritualistic offering up of gay sacrificial lambs upon the alter of Democratic electability and the keeping of lists of such lambs.

“Bahh-bahh” liberal sheep, and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
[/QUOTE]

pssst- You and Coulter both forgot to mention Crane-

Gerry Studds

[elelle]

Scylla, I believe your sympathy for gay rights would be better served by not using the term “sodomized” when describing sexual activity between consenting individuals. Just sayin’.

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=Scylla]
Granted. Should not the Democrats not be defending him as they did Studds? Should they not be even-handed and protect him, too? And who outed him? I hardly beleive in the coincidence of the timing. Do you?
[/quote]

You need more than “coincidence of timing” to claim there is some Democratic conspiracy here. There is simply no evidence that I’ve seen that any Democrat or Democratic operative was involved in “outing” Foley. There might be one Democrat in the House still who didn’t vote to censure Studds, so direct your anger at him specifically if you must, and if he has said anthing at all on the subject.

What crime is being coverd up? I honestly don’t know?

It needn’t be a crime to be of concern. If Hastert or anyone was negligent, they should be dealt with. That’s why we have ethics committees.

[RTFirefly]

Scylla, you’re turning into self-parody, dude.

This isn’t quite up to the standard of your goat-sex thread yet, but you’re getting there.

[Scylla]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Regardless, it’s appropriate for him to resign, since using teen pages – and arguably GROOMING teen pages – for flirtation purposes and more explicit conduct after they turn 18 is simply wrong.
[/quote]

I agree with you on the morality of it.

Now, the Pit thread.

That thread is not targetted at Mr. Foley. Instead, I inveigh against the various pundits, GOP leaders, and fellow travelers that sought to distract the attention from Foley’s actions by various means, including accusing Dems of manipulating the timing, the kid of setting Foley up, and the fact that there was a Dem Congressman who actually had sex with a 17-year-old male page.

Disagreeable, of course. Did you seriously expect anything different? It would be nice if Republicans and conservatives all reacted in one synchronous and correct voice (actually it would be like the Borg,) but the initial reaction to any scandal or impropriety is likely to be defensiveness. It’s a knee-jerk thing, like the man caught in flagrante delicto claiming “it’s not what it looks like.”

It is not the initial knee-jerk reaction by which I judge these things, but the ongoing one… which seems to my eyes to be appropriate if rather extreme.

All of those things are worthy of discussion. But NONE are worthy of supplanting the main issue: “our guy” (as it were) screwed up. If we are who we say we are, we should not be doing anything to distract or minimize this. That failure of behavior was what brought me to the Pit.

Again, placing my moral judgements aside it seems Foley certainly acted innapropriately, and unprofessionally and unethically in any kind of reasonable context.

But here’s the thing. They are strictly secondary. Our reaction should not be, “Well, the Dems did (or did not) do such-and-such.” Our reaction should simply be: “This is wrong, and we put a stop to it.”

And if it should come to pass that Hastert, or one of his ilk, knew in advance and failed to act, he needs to go.

In short: your points are valid, but utterly irrelevant. Are we really saying we need to consider how the Democrats react before we can judge the rightness or wrongness of something? The Dems supported Studds; they criticize Foley. Big Fucking Irrelevant Deal. What are WE going to do about how WE handled it? (Hint: any answer that has the word “Democrats” in it isn’t the right one.)

I’m honestly and truly not sure. I disaprove of a powerful man seeking sex from those in subordinate position. I disprove of it doubly so in an intern/page situation. I think it’s illegal and punishable if the person is underrage.

While I think it’s wrong, if it’s consenting, is it really my business if both parties are of age? Is it or should it be punishable?

I find the idea of a man pursuing friendships with underage people so he can identify potential sex partners when they come of age to be pretty slimy. No question about that.

Is it actionable? I don’t honestly know.

[David_Simmons]

[QUOTE=Scylla]
Yes. That is in fact the scandal presented to us for consumption in our regularly scheduled October surprise, and it is assumed we are too stupid to remember Mr. Studds or the ritualistic offering up of gay sacrificial lambs upon the alter of Democratic electability and the keeping of lists of such lambs.

“Bahh-bahh” liberal sheep, and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
[/QUOTE]
And while we’re at it let’s go after that Democratic scoundrel Grover Cleveland over that illegiimate kid.

[The_Golden_Ass]

Well, maybe we should give Scylla a break.

After all, Foley only requested oral sex and a picture of an erect penis

Nothing wrong with that, is there?

The second page who talked with ABC News, a graduate of the 2000 page class, says Foley actually visited the old page dorm and offered rides to events in his BMW.

“His e-mails developed into sexually explicit conversations, and he asked me for photographs of my erect penis,” the former page said.

[Brainiac4]

And, on the subject of this being a setup orchestrated by the Democrats and ABC News… would that be the same ABC that ran the right-wing smear job, I mean “documentary” “The Path to 9/11”? THAT ABC? Yeah, totally in the Democratic corner.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

[QUOTE=Scylla]
the initial reaction to any scandal or impropriety is likely to be defensiveness. It’s a knee-jerk thing, like the man caught in flagrante delicto claiming “it’s not what it looks like.”

It is not the initial knee-jerk reaction by which I judge these things, but the ongoing one… which seems to my eyes to be appropriate if rather extreme.
[/QUOTE]
Ah. So if the man caught in flagrante delicto proceeds to accuse the sexual partner of enticing him from otherwise unimpeachable virtue, to scream that his wife went whoring 20 years ago and got away with it, to blame his outing upon the evil machinations of his business rival, to call his neighbor a hypocritical…

Ah, I can’t finish this. “Appropriate if rather extreme”? You think such Coulter-spew is appropriate? You really think, Scylla, that the muck you’re knee-deep in is the moral high ground?

Stick to blimps.

[Scylla]

[QUOTE=elelle]
Scylla, I believe your sympathy for gay rights would be better served by not using the term “sodomized” when describing sexual activity between consenting individuals. Just sayin’.
[/QUOTE]

Yes. You are correct. Among some the term has lost much of it’s derogatory meaning “sodomites of the SDMB” for example, but it still does have that derogatory meaning in contexts where it’s not clear one is being ironic.

I meant no offense against gay sex and apologize for any that was construed.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Isn’t anyone going to correct the OP on his facts?

Scylla, there are (so far) at least five different former pages involved in this. The kid who initially complained and provided the merely “overly friendly” emails is a different kid from the one who Foley had the cyberwank with (who may have been 18 at the time), and there are three other kids beside those two who have come forward and accused Foley of coming onto them sexually when they were underage.

Read this, and, for Christ’s sake, get yourself at least on a nodding acquaintance with the facts before you write another sermon.

As to Studds, who gives a shit? It was 1973 (the sex occurred ten years before the scandal became public), the Democratic party leaders never tried to cover it up and it has absolutely no relevance to this scandal now.

[Hamlet]

@Scylla

After the boy was 18…

Cite?

[Scylla]

[QUOTE=The Golden Ass]
Well, maybe we should give Scylla a break.

After all, Foley only requested oral sex and a picture of an erect penis

Nothing wrong with that, is there?
[/QUOTE]

That appears to be credible and those children were underrage at the time. I retract the part about Foley not seeming to have committed a crime. I find his actions indefensible and am much more agreeable with the level of vigor being shown towards him.
Good link. Good info that I was not aware of. Thank you.

[GIGObuster]

[QUOTE=Scylla]

Studds sodomized a 17 year old boy and got reelected. How is he not a “predator” when cybersex with an 18 year old (which seems like a lesser offense) is?
[/quote]

The censorship was deserved, but Studds had a way out: back then 16 was the age of consent in his state, you are now mucho misleading in avoiding mentioning that several of the pages involved in the Foley scandal were younger and under 18 years of age (In context, it is likely his resignation came because Republicans feared Folley did something that was illegal in Florida; and IIRC, there are even laws, courtesy of the Republicans, that criminalize homosexual consensual relations).

*Granted. Granted. Should not the Democrats not be defending him as they did Studds? Should they not be even-handed and protect him, too?

Too late for that, courtesy of the Republicans.

And who outed him?

So far, the reports show that it is also courtesy of the Republicans.

I hardly believe in the coincidence of the timing. Do you?*

Took me awhile to get over the coincidence of the Reagan October surprise, but I had to drop it because there was insufficient evidence.

What crime is being coverd up? I honestly don’t know?

Sexual harassment, just for starters.

[Scylla]

[QUOTE=Hamlet]
Cite?
[/QUOTE]

I’m sorry. I’d read on CNN that the boy in the IMs was 18 at the times the IMs occured and no longer a page, but I can’t find it. That point seems moot now as I’ve been corrected and it appears he was actively soliciting pictures and cybersex from other pages while they were underrage.

I retract that defense and concede to DTC and others who have pointed out that he solicited other underrage children.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

[QUOTE=Scylla]
That appears to be credible and those children were underrage at the time. I retract the part about Foley not seeming to have committed a crime. I find his actions indefensible and am much more agreeable with the level of vigor being shown towards him.
Good link. Good info that I was not aware of. Thank you.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, peachy-keen! Now kindly go read the other links that have been provided, digest the facts, then come back and retract all the other fucked-up bullshit you spewed, m’kay?

[Frank]

[QUOTE=David Simmons]
And while we’re at it let’s go after that Democratic scoundrel Grover Cleveland over that illegiimate kid.
[/QUOTE]

They did:

The campaign was relatively negative. To counter Cleveland’s image of purity, his opponents reported that Cleveland had fathered an illegitimate child while he was a lawyer in Buffalo. Republican crowds chanted, “Ma, Ma, where’s my Pa?”

Although Cleveland never publicly admitted or denied the rumor, he did admit to paying child support in 1874 to Maria Crofts Halpin, the woman who claimed he fathered her child named Oscar Folsom Cleveland. Halpin was involved with several men at the time, including Cleveland’s law partner and mentor, Oscar Folsom, for whom the child was named. (Cleveland is believed to have assumed responsibility because he was the only bachelor among them.) After Cleveland’s election as President, Democratic newspapers added a line to chant used against Cleveland and made it: “Ma, Ma, where’s my Pa? Gone to the White House! Ha Ha Ha!”

[42fish]

[QUOTE=Scylla]
If Gerry Studds can get reelected with Democratic support after sodomizing 17 year old boys why would they seek to crucify Mr. Foley for email and IM with an 18 year old?

[/QUOTE]

Just out of curiosity,if you’re ever on a jury in a case with a white defendent, are going to vote not guilty solely on the grounds that ‘Hey, OJ got away with it. Why shouldn’t this guy?’

[Scylla]

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
, you are now mucho misleading in avoiding mentioning that several of the pages involved in the Foley scandal were younger and under 18 years of age
[/QUOTE]

More like muchos ignorant and embarassed.

I was wrong on this. I acknowledge it, and I thank you for the correction