Majority Leader John Boehner has now reverersed again. his previous statements, and now says that Speaker Hastert did in fact know about the problem with Mark Foley and it is he who allowed a sexual predator to continue in a supervisory role with minor children in the US Capitol.
In a radio interview with 700 WLW radio in Cincinnati, House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) placed responsibility for the Foley matter not being handled properly on House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL).
"I believe I talked to the Speaker and he told me it had been taken care of," said Boehner. "And, and, and my position is it’s in his corner, it’s his responsibility. The Clerk of the House who runs the page program, the Page Board—all report to the Speaker. And I believe it had been dealt with."
So the question is who’s Hastert going to go after now? Reynolds office had a direct link in this coverup, Shimkus knew and he was on the Page board even. The only damage control the right can do now is to focus the blame on as few people as possible, but that relies on them all accepting that its their fault they did what everyone else was doing too. I dont imagine Hastert will just take it, and even if he does, it certainly doesnt stop the issue. Lets just see how far the pedophilia thing goes and how many people it… oh god… [HORRIBLE PUN WARNING] brings to their knees… jesus damn I’m sorry about that.
Oliver, I have a question for you as you keep throwing the word ‘pedophile’ around as well as the term ’sexual predator’ and keep referring to 16 and 17 year olds as ‘minor children.’
The age of consent in DC is 16. If Foley hooked up with one of these pages while they were in town and the page willingly went to a hotel room with Foley and had sex all night long and they both enjoyed “measuring it”, it would have been perfectly legal. Can you reconcile that with your language?
Yes, but the bill Foley sponsored criminalizes an adult using the internet to seduce anyone under 18. It’s not as though the FBI doesn’t know how old the kid is, Jay.
Doc, that is not what I asked. If Foley is prosecuted under the very law he helped to get passed, then that would be poetic justice. But that still doesn’t answer my question. Thanks.
“… then that would be poetic justice.”
Poetic justice but not soliciting sex from a minor over the internet?
Let me just say that the real crime here is the abuse of power by a Congressman over lowly pages. I’ve read that some of them feared coming forward because it might ruin their future. Nothing other than fear of that power would cause them to keep it quiet.
In addition, the GOP leadership’s behavior on all of this is appalling. They should have told Foley to take a hike the moment this all surfaced. But power unfortunately corrupts.
The point is, the case against the GOP leadership and Foley can be made without resorting to things like calling these kids ‘minor children’ as if they were 9 and 10 years old.
“Let me just say that the real crime here is the abuse of power by a Congressman over lowly pages.”
Except for the part where soliciting sex over the internet from someone under 18 is a federal crime.
so all of jay’s posts on this topic are based on his objection to the word children appearing immediately after the word minor? Federal law(s) may have been broken, republican congressman may have covered up this lawbreaking, but it’s semantic redundancy that bothered jay enough to post on this topic in the first place? Interesting
“The point is, the case against the GOP leadership and Foley can be made without resorting to things like calling these kids ‘minor children’ as if they were 9 and 10 years old.”
Yes, of course. We wouldn’t want the rhetoric to get out of hand. It’s not as if he “adulterated” and “defiled” his office, like, you know, Clinton, who had consensual sexual relations with an adult.
Okay Jay, but the thing is that we’re not talking about a 19 year old and a 16 year old or anything where the consent age is a stupid little barrier, we’re talking about Foley being, what, three times these kids age? And yeah, I’m calling them kids, for chrissake I was a child until I was 21. The fact that, in DC specifically its not actually considered to be below the age of consent, doesnt change the obvious fact that Foley is clearly attracted to young men drastically younger than he is. Thats, for me, the definition of pedophilia. I mean a 16 year old wanting sex with another 16 year old isnt, but a 51 year old? yeah, thats where I draw the line. Let me ask you this though, if its demonstrable that he was interested in at least one 15 year old, below the consent age, are you going to concede that Foley is a pedophile then? Or are you going to find another way to attack the people going after this without actually refuting anything of merit in the argument?
Except for the part where soliciting sex over the internet from someone under 18 is a federal crime.
And as I pointed out, if Foley had sex with one of them in a hotel room in most states in the country, that would have been perfectly legal.
Try to distinguish the difference between morality and the law Paul.
Would you have been ok with Foley having sex with a 16 year old simply because it was legal? I doubt it. So when I say that the real crime here is the abuse of power, don’t try to trump it by breaking out federal legal statutes.
You missed the mark on the Clinton rhetoric. Last my friend Ann Coulter told me, Bubba was a “rapist!”
“Try to distinguish the difference between morality and the law Paul.”
Um, Jay, try distinguishing between your rhetorical bullshit and reality.
Foley sent sexually suggestive and explicit emails to people under the age of 18, and in some cases, requested rendezvous. That’s a federal crime. So the real crime is actually a real crime. Idiot.
The semantics notwithstanding, yet again the GOP fails to learn the lesson that the coverup is bigger than the crime.
If Foley’s peccadilloes had really taken everybody by surprise, it wouldn’t potentially be affecting the elections…he’d be a bad apple who got rooted out.
The flagrant abuse of power to cover for Foley is what should be sledgehammered against the Republicans for every contested seat in the nation.
REPUBLICANS: DOING ANYTHING IT TAKES TO REMAIN YOUR OVERLORDS.
On another note, does anybody else think that somebody handed Boehner “Selections from Macchiavelli”?
And once again I find that it would be easier to tape feathers to my arms and fly to the moon than to have any kind if intellectual conversation with a jackass like Frameone. Does it hurt your head to be so stupid? Of course, you couldn’t answer my question because that would get in the way of your stupidity. Go review ‘The Departed’ Paul. I am going to see it this weekend and leave more intellectual matters to people with the brains. Thanks.
“Try to distinguish the difference between morality and the law Paul.”
And I might add, the law in this case is pretty well in line with morality on this issue: It’s a bad thing for adults to abuse their influence over children under 18 for their own gratification.
I just don’t understand why insist on defending Foley.
“Intellectual matters” like a Republican sex scandal?
Way to inflate your ego Jay.
Of course its the abuse of power Jay. These are young kids who are preyed upon by a much older man in a position of trust and power over them. Its inappropriate and as far as I can tell criminal on many fronts. If people are offended by the youth of the victims especially compared to the age of the predator who cares? If it were your 16 year old kid, what would you call the guy? A misguided adult having inappropriate contact with a legally underage young adult? Give me a break.
Oh and Rex, I don’t disagree with much of what you’re saying. All I am saying is that using such rhetoric could cause problems down the road. Remember, in many states the age of consent is what it is. In some states there are qualifiers that can raise the age of consent.
But under certain circumstances, the law doesn’t distinguish between somebody who is 51 soliciting a 16 year old for sex or a 19 year old doing the same thing.
As for the word pedophile, just saying it makes me feel creepy. However, I have normally associated the word with somebody that takes advantage of very young children. We’re talking about real children with absolutely no understanding of sex and who can be easily led to believe what is being done to them is normal.
Jay seems incapable of understanding that Foley both acted immorally and may have broken the law, a federal law at that. Of course, Jay is a self-proclaimed “intellectual” so I’m not surprised.
I just don’t understand why insist on defending Foley.
Another bogus accusation and standard diversion. Try and discuss the issue and ask people to reconcile some of the things they are saying with other legal and moral aspects and it becomes a ‘defense’ of Foley.
Nothing could be further from the truth so grow up.
Is Jay seriously arguing that if Foley had just taken a 16 year old page to a motel and had sex with him there wouldn’t be a scandal because no crime would have been committed? Family values!!!
“As for the word pedophile, just saying it makes me feel creepy.”
How intellectual of you.
“Nothing could be further from the truth so grow up.”
Do you mean “grown up” enough for a Republican congressman to hit on me legally or just “grown up” enough so that it doesn’t make you feel creepy when he does?
Jay seems incapable of understanding that Foley both acted immorally and may have broken the law, a federal law at that.
No Frame, let me try to explain it to you.
You’re saying the use of such language that I asked Oliver about is justified simply because there is a federal law on the books that said soliciting sex over the Internet is a crime and Foley may have broken these laws.
In short, what you’re saying is that your view of an issue is based upon whether or not something is legal or illegal. I asked you if you were ok with Foley having sex with a 16 year old male page in a DC hotel room. Such action would have been legal. You haven’t answered. And I know why you haven’t answered. Because you’d be backing yourself into a corner. If it’s legal, how can there be something wrong with it, right?
Is Jay seriously arguing that if Foley had just taken a 16 year old page to a motel and had sex with him there wouldn’t be a scandal because no crime would have been committed?
No. Actually, it’s what Frame is arguing by default.
Look at Jay’s kool aid spouting there. Notice how he wants to argue over the word pedophile and insists its about “young children” who have “no understnading of sex” and “who can be easily led to believe what is being done to them is normal”. Where have we heard that before? I mean are you trying to share the responsibility between Foley and the pages as we’ve seen some conservative pundits try? Are you saying Foley was lead on? That this kid was a willing participant old enough to resist pressure from an authority figure and have the judgement necessary to make sexual decisions of this magnitude? Is Foley’s behavior in your view normal Jay?
“No. Actually, it’s what Frame is arguing by default.”
Another bogus accusation and standard diversion. Try and discuss the issue and ask people to reconcile some of the things they are saying with other legal and moral aspects and it becomes a ‘defense’ of Foley.
Nothing could be further from the truth so grow up.
Frame, why won’t you answer the question?
jay, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Frame made his point very clearly, “Jay seems incapable of understanding that Foley both acted immorally AND may have broken the law.” Frame is not upset just because what Foley did was immoral or just because what Foley did was illegal. The issue is what Foley did was immoral AND illegal.
No one gets the point you are trying to make Jay. Frame has been pretty clear that he is not okay about any sexual contact between a 51 year old in a position of trust and power over a 16 year old regardless of legal standing. You are trying to bog the issue down on semantics over the use of the word pedophile, which many people would believe is appropriate given their views on the subject regardless of what the dictionary may say.
People are talking about this scandal, a 51 year old congressman who had inappropriate contact with a 16 year old capitol hill page, and the resultant coverup by Republican leadership while you want to run around screaming “it isn’t pedophilia! Look at the dictionary!” Whatever, its creepy, illegal, inapropriate, and ultimately a huge failing by the Republican leadership in the areas of responsibility and family values.
Nice try. You don’t want to discuss the issues, you want to bog it down in semantics. Are you personally offended by Foley’s actions and the subsequent cover up? Not as much as you are offended by someone using the word pedophile. Give us a better word that sums it up. How about Molester. Would that make you happy? The Republican Molestergate Scandal.
Merriam – Webster’s dictionary defines pedophilia as a sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object. Given the content of Foley’s messages to the page and given the page’s legal standing under federal law, pedophile is a very appropriate term to describe Foley.
Frame made his point very clearly, “Jay seems incapable of understanding that Foley both acted immorally AND may have broken the law.” Frame is not upset just because what Foley did was immoral or just because what Foley did was illegal. The issue is what Foley did was immoral AND illegal.
Actually, when I said that the real crime here was Foley’s abuse of his position and his power, Frame responded:
Foley sent sexually suggestive and explicit emails to people under the age of 18, and in some cases, requested rendezvous. That’s a federal crime. So the real crime is actually a real crime. Idiot.
At that point, Frame decided to separate what was moral from what was legal.
Frame has been pretty clear that he is not okay about any sexual contact between a 51 year old in a position of trust and power over a 16 year old regardless of legal standing.
Where has he been clear about that? Again, he called me an idiot because I said that Foley’s abuse of power was worse than some federal law that makes it a crime for Foley to ask a page to measure his dick. Frame obviously disagreed and called me an idiot in the process.
I have since asked (several times) that if he is more concerned with what is legal than what is moral would he have a problem if Foley was having sex with a 16 year old page considering such an action would have been legal.
He won’t answer.
“If it’s legal, how can there be something wrong with it, right?”
Um, Jay, you’re the one who has a problem with Oliver calling Foley a pedophile. Remember you wrote:
Given the content of Foley’s messages to the page and given the page’s legal standing under federal law, pedophile is a very appropriate term to describe Foley.
You see what I mean?
I think Foley’s actions were disgusting because:
A. Foley is 51 years old and has no business trying to get into the pants of a 16 year old. Let alone a 16 year old male.
B. Foley is a Congressman, which is a very powerful position. Foley abused that power in a major way and thought his powerful position would allow him to get away with it.
You guys think Foley is a pedophile because of the kid’s “legal standing under federal law.”
Fix.
f’d up tag.
Well, I, for one, don’t see what’s so hard to understand about Jay’s point.
Sending an IM message, no matter how explicit, is not pedophilia in the eyes of the law.
Having actual sex with a 16-year-old is not pedophilia in the eyes of the law.
I mean, if you’re going to be technically accurate, saying this case involves pedophilia is about as accurate as saying it involves counterfeiting. Just because you like the word doesn’t make it relevant.
On the other hand, what’s incomprehensible is why Jay is bothering to make the point. Mr. Foley will not be charged with pedophilia. Nonetheless, his actions with teenagers are so embarrassing to himself and his party that he has resigned and gone into hiding.
His party is scrambling to pass the blame for not putting a stop of Mr. Foley’s activities.
The overwhelming majority of the public will disapprove of Mr. Foley’s actions and any failure by House leaders to stop him.
In comparison to all that, arguing about the technical misuse of the word “pedophilia” seems like straining at gnats, doesn’t it?
“You guys think Foley is a pedophile because of the kid’s “legal standing under federal law.”
Nice emphasis, Jay. You idiot. Did you comepletely forget the first half of quote that you, yourself quoted:
“Given the content of Foley’s messages to the page and given the page’s legal standing under federal law …”
Jays seems to think that he’s more “intellectual” than anyone here because only HE can FULLY understand the depravity of Foley’s actions, not like us neanderthals who happen to add that Foley also may have broke the law. A law that Jay, for some reason, has yet to acknowledge as applicable or even worthy of mention.
What a fucking moron.
What does your stupid question have to do with the discussion Jay? I mean, I thought this answered it anyway:
“And I might add, the law in this case is pretty well in line with morality on this issue: It’s a bad thing for adults to abuse their influence over children under 18 for their own gratification.”
It isn’t just about Foley’s abuse of power Jay, the age of these kids comes into play as factors in the morality and the legal aspects. You can’t just ignore the ages of the kids when talking about Foley. It is a factor. Nor can you ignore the ages of the kids when you talk about the Republican leadership failing to take action to protect these kids under their charge. Age is a factor. On Foley’s actions, if these kids were 9 or 10 we’d be talking about lynch mobs, I think. At 16 we’re talking about ruined career and jail time. 22, we’d probably be talking about censure. For the cover up, 9 or 10 we’d be talking about serious jail time. 16 we’re talking about ruined careers, 22 we’d be talking about losing a leadership position maybe.
“Sending an IM message, no matter how explicit, is not pedophilia in the eyes of the law.”
Um, does the law even bother to define pedophilia? Is just being a pedophiliac against the law?
As I understand it, pedophilia is a medical term, that, depending on who your consulting, can have a rather wide range of definitions in terms of age of sexual interest.
Quaker, my point is most of us have kids. Let’s say somebody’s 19 year old son in here was having a relationship with a 16 year old and part of that relationship was sexually explicit email and IM conversations.
Under federal law, that 19 year old would be committing a crime. After all, the 16 year old girl is a ‘minor child’, no? And yes, you might find that some people would call the 19 year old, a pedophile.
It’s why I caution people not to:
A. Get so caught up in using incendiary language
and
B. Get caught up in saying something is so bad, simply because it is illegal.
What Foley did wasn’t disgusting because it was illegal. What Foley did was disgusting is because it was morally repugnant.
Jays seems to think that he’s more “intellectual” than anyone here because only HE can FULLY understand the depravity of Foley’s actions, not like us neanderthals who happen to add that Foley also may have broke the law.
Uhh…no jackass. Like I said, you seem to think that Foley’s actions were depraved because his actions may have been illegal.
My view? His actions were repugnant whether they were legal or not.
Twit.
Um, does the law even bother to define pedophilia?
Beats me. The law might just call it “Having Sex With a Minor”.
But you get the point. Jay is arguing the technical apropriateness of a specific term. To me, that seems trivial.
Can we maybe agree to use the word molester instead of pedophile to make Jay happy?
The whole “legality” question is a nice try at a diversion, but it isn’t the meat of this whole controversy.
The old adage “it’s not the crime, it’s the cover up” has never been truer. Foley’s deviance might have played out over a few days and disappeared into the ether had the GOP leadership not decided to cover his ass. The GOP leadership’s scramble to dodge this controversy and pin the blame on Hastert has done a magnificent job of pushing everything else off the front page and making accountability a serious issue with just five weeks to the elections.
Of course, the infamous line about getting caught in bed with “a dead girl or a live boy” applies, too.
Foley’s behavior is reprehensible on multiple levels, not the least being that he is not only an adult substantially older than his pages, but he is also a political figure with considerable influence. What’s more, Foley’s position of authority may put him in legal jeopardy here because many states have specific clauses that prohibit the abuse of authority to elicit sexual contact with an otherwise “of age” minor. I don’t know if that is the case in D.C.
Age of consent issues don’t change the basic dynamic at work, though, namely that of a grown adult plying a child for sexual gratification. Given that none of the pages in question can vote, drink alcohol, join the Army (well, maybe not yet…), and so on, not many people will be moved by the argument “hey, no crime, no foul.” Do parents even remotely consider questions like “age of consent” when pondering the possibility that their child may be accosted by a 52 year old man, much less a politician? Putting him in charge of protecting children only seems like putting the fox in the hen house.
What’s more, this has to raise the spectre of possible criminal conduct with unknown minors that hasn’t come to light. That isn’t to say such crimes have occured, just that there is no way the thought isn’t crossing the minds of millions of potential voters.
Then there is this point of view to worry about (if you are a GOP “family values” candidate with his seat on the line):
Seeing as how homosexuals brought down the Towers and sank New Orleans, it was only a matter of time before their pedophile ways reached into the heart of Washington. If only we had made it Constitutionally permissible to treat them like the second rate citizens they are, none of this would have happened.
FEED ME.
What Foley did wasn’t disgusting because it was illegal. What Foley did was disgusting is because it was morally repugnant.
Sure. The law, by its nature, has to draw arbitrary lines. What is illegal when a young sex partner is 15 years and 364 days old becomes technically legal the next day.
Does the moral status of the relationship change at the stroke of midnight? I’d be surprised if anyone here thought so.
Still, by your own admission, some people would call a 19-year-old who has sex with a 16-year-old a pedophile. But for some reason, you’re arguing with OW about applying the term to 52-year-old Mr. Foley.
“My view? His actions were repugnant whether they were legal or not.”
Oh, Jay. What a doofus.
“But for some reason, you’re arguing with OW about applying the term to 52-year-old Mr. Foley.”
Because, you know, conservatives are notorious for their insistence on fair, even-handed rhetoric.
Does the moral status of the relationship change at the stroke of midnight? I’d be surprised if anyone here thought so.
I wouldn’t.
Have you guys not seen the current Primetime Live “To Catch A Predator” series lately? What is the difference between that and what Foley has been doing?
As we saw with the hot blonde teacher who seduced her student, the argument is made that the minor is not emotionally equipped to deal with the situation (i.e., questioning the authority of the person hitting on them.) That makes it wrong.
Another question; if these kids are not from DC, does the age of consent apply to just the district or can it be applied to the state they are from?
This whole mess just makes me question anyone who claims to stand up for “family values.”
What a stupid conversation, although most conversations with J really are.
So here we have a Republican Congressman who committed a reprehensible act soliciting minors.
J argues that the REAL crime is abusing his influence over the young men, which is convenient for J to be able to dismiss these charges because abusing his influence is actually not a real crime at all.
On the other hand, breaking the law by soliciting minors is ok with J, because the REAL crime (which isn’t an ACTUAL crime) is abusing his position of authority.
I think it should tell J how tenable his position is when the usual RW trolls won’t even take his side.
Just another episode of J: King Asshat: OW Troll.
On the other hand, breaking the law by soliciting minors is ok with J,
Did he say that? I missed it.
Guys, while you argue about whether or not the word “pedophile” applies and whether Mr. Foley is a criminal or a moral reprobate, you’re missing the importance of the original post.
The House majority leader has just changed his story–again–about the House Speaker’s failure to take care of this. Our freakin’ Congress is doing a flaming Pinto meltdown right before our eyes.
Perspective, gents.
“… you’re missing the importance of the original post.”
Oh, no, no, no. As everyone knows, the most important thing in this scandal is what Oliver does and says. I know this because Jay the Intellectual says so.
“Actually, when I said that the real crime here was Foley’s abuse of his position and his power, Frame responded:”
later in same post
Where has he been clear about that? Again, he called me an idiot because I said that Foley’s abuse of power was worse than some federal law that makes it a crime for Foley to ask a page to measure his dick. Frame obviously disagreed and called me an idiot in the process.
He’s trivializing the law as “some federal law that makes it a crime for Foley to ask a page to measure his dick” and talking about a “real crime” which isn’t really a crime.
That tells me he doesn’t take this law seriously this law.
I think I know what J is leading up to. See if the “real crime” is abusing his authority, it’s really no worse that what Clinton did.
He wants us to forget that trolling for minors over the internet is illegal.
get so caught up in using incendiary language
Watching a Republican pleading for toned-down rhetoric, after weeks of “Islamofascism” and “defeatocrats” would make me chuckle for minutes if it weren’t so truly and disturbingly weird.
He’s trivializing the law as “some federal law that makes it a crime for Foley to ask a page to measure his dick” and talking about a “real crime” which isn’t really a crime.
OK, look. This is my last word on the matter, I promise. You want to look for reasons to fight with Jay? Have at it. He likes a good wallow as much as anybody.
The law codifies society’s consensus about allowable behavior. Whether you think Mr. Foley is a criminal because he violated statute or you think he’s immoral because he violated the consensus underlying the state is an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin argument.
You’ve got it BD. Why can’t you just be civil!
In my book a 52yr old man in a position of power sexually propositioning a 16yr old is a pedophile. Yes, its an admittedly harsh view of things, but that’s how it is.
If we substituted the words “Republican Party” with “Catholic Church,” the term “Representative” with “Priest”, and “Leadership” to “Cardinals”, would that change the nature of your argument, Jay?
Jay’s rhetoric above upsets me, but doesn’t surprise me.
You’re asking Oliver to be FAIR to Foley after all of the crap we’ve been hearing from you morons for the past 5 years?
Jay Caruso, you have a lot of nerve.
The timing of this scandal couldn’t be better in my opinion, and I’d be positively gleeful if not for the fact that a minor was exploited.
You SOB’s DESERVE to be swept out of power this Fall, and two years from now, for what you are putting this country through.
In some cases, simply being “removed” from power may not be good enough. (As is the case with this particular creepy person.)
To think that you all got OUTRAGED about a BJ in the Oval Office….
You guys SICKEN, SICKEN, SICKEN me.
JK
Having actual sex with a 16-year-old is not pedophilia in the eyes of the law.
Wanna bet on that one? In almost any state, such an act would be prosecuted and involve serious jail time in the event of conviction. Surely you didn’t actually intend to write that? If so the republicans are more desperate than I thought.
You’re asking Oliver to be FAIR to Foley after all of the crap we’ve been hearing from you morons for the past 5 years?
First of all, I didn’t ask Oliver to be fair to Foley you stupid ass.
Second of all, after all you guys have been hearing for the last five years? Give me a freaking break. The level of shrill rhetoric eminating from the Democrats and the left has reached levels that destroys ear drums.
As for the rest of your comment, stop sounding like such a frigging Mary. Get a life.
Wanna bet on that one? In almost any state, such an act would be prosecuted and involve serious jail time in the event of conviction. Surely you didn’t actually intend to write that? If so the republicans are more desperate than I thought.
Look closely. It was Quaker who wrote it. And you’re wrong. The age of consent in most states is 16. Therefore, a 60 year old could have sex with a 16 year old in DC and it wouldn’t be illegal.
One more thing JK: Never has there been more of an opportune time for the Democrats to win something. Guess what? They’ll still fuck it up.
“I didn’t ask Oliver to be fair to Foley you stupid ass … stop sounding like such a frigging Mary. Get a life.”
This must be the New Intellectualism. Right, Jay?
What a moron.
“Therefore, a 60 year old could have sex with a 16 year old in DC and it wouldn’t be illegal.”
Which is why Jay is all fired up to get Oliver to stop calling Foley a pedophile. Jay thinks Foley is better than pedophiles because Foley likes it Barely Legal. Awesome intellectual contribution to the thread, Jay. Just awesome.
Actually, my history with JK goes back about 6-7 years Frame, so you don’t know what you’re talking about in that regard, so just shut up about that.
Which is why Jay is all fired up to get Oliver to stop calling Foley a pedophile. Jay thinks Foley is better than pedophiles because Foley likes it Barely Legal. Awesome intellectual contribution to the thread, Jay. Just awesome.
Squawk!! “Awesome Jay!” Squawk!! “Awesom Jay!” Squawk!!
Go have a cracker Polly.
I’m sorry that my contributions cannot extend beyond saying ‘awesome’ like Jeff Spiccoli or calling people ‘idiots.’ If only I could be so smart…
Oh and BTW, I wouldn’t getting too high and mighty considering the only reason you find something to be disgusting is because it’s illegal(ie as long as something is legal, it’s ok), which has basically been your position.
Jay…regardless of our history…some things are right, and some things are wrong. This one, ain’t hard to figure out. We have a saying in my line or work…sometimes the best thing to do, is “remain silent.”
Jay. What in the WORLD is your problem?
You can qualify, qualify, and qualify your defense.
There’s no defense for this, however. You of all people on the right, should know better.
Jay…we went through some “wars,” didn’t we?
You’re the one guy on the right side of the blogosphere I have some level of respect for, as a person, a father, and a decent human being.
My advice. Pick your battles, dude. This ain’t one of them.
JK
Year 2025: J’s grandchildren ask him “what did YOU do for the war on terror”
J: “I defended torture and refused to let liberals call a Republican Congressman who solicited 16-year-olds a pedophile!”
GC: “Awesome, Grampa!”
“… which has basically been your position.”
I reiterate: Another bogus accusation and standard diversion. Try and discuss the issue and ask people to reconcile some of the things they are saying with other legal and moral aspects and it becomes a ‘defense’ of Foley.
Nothing could be further from the truth so grow up.
And you have a “history” with JK? Who fucking cares. God, you’re a moron, Jay.
These wingnuts like jay are squirming a lot.
Pity those poor republitards in Florida, now having to cast their vote for the party’s second choice after the pedophile — by putting their mark next to Foley’s name.
Swinging Lifestyle and Adult Dating – Find your Perfect SEX Partner today.
Great DataBase of Swinging Couples who Enjoy Relationship and Sex with One Another.
FREE to Join. swingers
http://swingers-mate.com