[QUOTE=EddyTeddyFreddy]
And no matter how often you hear his first name pronounced “Jerry”, it’s wrong. Hard “G” sound, like “Gary”. This despite the fact he’s named for the remote ancestor whose poloticized districting gave us the term “gerrymander.”
[/QUOTE]
:smack:
“politicized”
:smack:
If anyone’s interested, here’s more info on gerrymandering and Elbridge Gerry.
This will teach you to write your own pittings, which are generally brilliant even if you are the side of evil, rather than trying to re-ghostwrite an Ann Coulter collumn. 
I’ve said this in a couple of other Foley-related threads, so i hope the people from those threads will forgive me if i seem to be a broken record on this issue, but…
16 and 17 is NOT “underage” in the District of Columbia, where Rep. Foley engaged in most (perhaps all) of his dubious activities.
I’m not excusing the guy. As i’ve said elsewhere, i believe that this sort of behaviour in any sort of work environment is completely inappropriate, involving as it does inequities of power and the potential for exerting undue influence on people in subordinate positions. It’s sexual harassment, plain and simple.
But the DC code defines a child, for the purposes of sex and sex-related legislation, as someone who has not yet attained the age of 16 years. By my count, over half the states in the union also set 16 as the age of consent.
Admittedly, the DC law regarding age of consent applies to male/female sex, and says nothing specifically about homosexual sex. But DC laws against homosexual intercourse were repealed some time ago, so i think it’s reasonable to place gay sex and straight sex on the same level in this discussion.
i’m not arguing that Foley did nothing illegal. After all, there are, for example, federal laws that prohibit solicitation of sexual acts with anyone under the age of 18 over the internet or other electronic devices, if such communication crosses state lines. It’s possible that Foley broke those laws, and other similar ones.
There are also laws—stupid and hypocritical, in my opinion—that define child pornography as sexual representations of people under the age of 18, even when the age of consent is 16. We had a thread a year or so ago about a guy charged with child pornography (i think in Indiana) for taking nude photos of a 17 year old girl. He could legally have sex with her, but not take her picture. Ridiculous.
All i’m saying, i guess, is that, while i find the idea of a 52 year old sending erotic text messages to a 16 year old a bit squicky and gross, i think that 16 is a perfectly reasonable age of consent, and plenty of jurisidictions in the US and in the Western democratic world agree with me. Foley’s acts might be a sign of lame-ass desperation or a youth fetish, but it’s not in the same league as chld molestation, in my opinion. For me, the aspect of his behaviour that makes him unfit for office is the fact that he did this on the job, with people over whom he exerted power and influence. The sex part, by itself, doesn’t really worry me at all.
Just my 2c.
[QUOTE=Scylla]
the List
[/QUOTE]
I want to add my admiration for Scylla for admitting his error. This is why I liked you before the Flavor-Aid habit began.
And I’d like to add that The List is looking to shape up to be an attempt by Leadership to throw their gay staffers to the wolves with crosses around their necks. While I find the phrase “hoist by their own petard” fitting in regard to the folks on The List, I also have that deep feeling of dread for any gay folk who find themselves suddenly shut out, however UNsurprising such ostracism may be, given their associations. Maybe this will help them realize that supping with a party that officially hates you is a bad idea, even if you support all of their other platform planks.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I say cut him loose.
[/QUOTE]
Sure. Until the next time he goes off tilting at partisan windmills.
Well, technically, Santorum is a senator.
Someone should bookmark this thread for the next time friend Scylla drags out one of his periodic condemnation of the SDMB resident leftists/liberals/progressives/non-conservatives/sane folks as “rabid shrieking partisans”.
[QUOTE=Scylla]
And who outed him?
[/QUOTE]
As long as we’re picking over the bones of a dead donkey (elephant??) here, the actual outing was done by Foley’s attorney
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Well, technically, Santorum is a senator.
[/QUOTE]
Also technically, but he’s only an erect penis when he is actually standing.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Quote:
Well, technically, Santorum is a senator.
[/QUOTE]
Technically, he’s mine! GAAAHH! :eek: Congratulations, gentlemen of the SDMB. You’ve traumatized this straight, female Doper into temporary celibacy.
[QUOTE=Frank]
D’you want me to close this?
[/QUOTE]
Wait! I want to pile on first!
Just kidding. He did ask for a mercy killing back in Old # 44.
[QUOTE=Cervaise]
Sure. Until the next time he goes off tilting at partisan windmills.
[/QUOTE]
I would hope that, were I to fall flat on my face three or four times, I would at least check to see if my shoes were tied.
Cheer up, Scylla. You’ll always have Michelle Malkin.
[QUOTE=scylla]
remember that the Nazis made “lists” too.
[/QUOTE]
“You know the Nazis had pieces of flare that they made the Jews wear.”
– Peter Gibbons
[QUOTE=jayjay]
“hoist by their own petard” .
[/QUOTE]
::nitpick :: the line is “hoist with his own petard,” not “by his own petard.” See the Master on the subject.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Also technically, but he’s only an erect penis when he is actually standing.
[/QUOTE]
Now dammit, that’s going too far!
What did poor erect penises everywhere do to deserve being compared with Santorum?
[QUOTE=rjung]
Someone should bookmark this thread for the next time friend Scylla drags out one of his periodic condemnation of the SDMB resident leftists/liberals/progressives/non-conservatives/sane folks as “rabid shrieking partisans”.
[/QUOTE]
No kidding. Good for Scylla for admitting he was wrong. I’m not sure why so many people are so impressed by that, though. I consider that a pretty minimal standard for any sort of rational discussion. But Scylla could have continued flailing, instead, so I guess it’s better that he admitted it.
Meanwhile, I can’t say I’m all that shocked that Scylla leapt to excoriate the Democrats without actually knowing any of the facts. He claims not to be a Republican, but he’s certainly got a history of rabid partisanship, and this is no exception. It’s not a surprise to see he reads Ann Coulter - that’s about the level of Scylla’s political contributions around here. It’s a sign of how rabidly partisan he is that he doesn’t check the facts first - why let that get in the way of yelling at your political opponents, right, Scylla?
Dammit! I only started reading this thread in the hopes of joining the pile-on of Scylla… and then I see that [Scylla**'s retracted the argument and apologized.
Crap. Way to suck the fun out of my Friday, dude.
[QUOTE=Lightnin’]
Dammit! I only started reading this thread in the hopes of joining the pile-on of Scylla… and then I see that [Scylla**'s retracted the argument and apologized.
Crap. Way to suck the fun out of my Friday, dude.
[/QUOTE]
Well, you can always jump over to the other thread and join the **Shodan **pile on, if that’s any consolation.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Well, technically, Santorum is a senator.
[/QUOTE]
I was just about to ask if anyone meant Senator “Man on Dog” Santorum!
[QUOTE=imthjckaz]
Somebody is going to make this their sig.
[/QUOTE]
Not me. I’ve already got a genuine Scylla-fied .sig.
