"there have been lots of scandals in Congress, many of them about something more serious," Just on CNN a few minutes ago. Sounds like Tony Snow has a very high moral standard indeed. I wonder what the Congress is doing that we don't know about and are more serious than pedophilia. Family values anyone?
Saw a story on the news this a.m., the FBI is investigating that Foley may have engaged in child sexual predator behavior. Let's see, hmmm. Foley, 52 yrs old, writes to a 16 yr old boy to âstrip downâ and, when told the teenager is wearing a T-shirt and shorts, he replies, âlove to slip them off of youâ. "May have engaged"? Er... H
It is a disgrace to all of us that the office of the President of the U. S. is defending a pedophile. They should at least on the surface place the integrity of the office above politics (of course they never do). It is sheer stupidity of Tony Snow to drag the Whitehouse into this mud.
It's a non-partisan issue. Doesn't matter if he was dem, rep, independent, or was a guy off the street who snuck into the offices of Congress and used their computers to stalk young boys on the internet. How is he any different from all those pedophiles on the NBC (sensational, exploitive) documentary shows that catch these bastards showing up at what they think is some kid's home, only to be greeted by Stone Phillips? Hell, maybe if they'd let Foley keep at it a while longer, he may have actually been one of those assholes caught on tape. What's the diff? If they don't prosecute this guy... H
The Democrat in this incident was not only caught talking lewdly, but engaging in sex with a minor ... and what's more he FOUGHT FOR HIS RIGHT TO, AND MAINTAINED HIS POSITION IN OFFICE AFTERWARD!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Congressional_page_sex_scandal Family Values?! ... transparent douche-bag what is your main beef? i. that he talked lewdly to 16 year old teenager ii. he pretends to be against talking lewdly to 16 year old teenagers?
Wow, I'm amazed at how far you conservatives would go to defend a pedophile. 1. There were a Democrat and a Republican in that incident you cited. How convenient that you picked only the Democrat as the example. 2. This is morally wrong, no matter who does it. No one should defend it. 3. Whether you like it or not, Democrats do not put a uniform moral standard on their candidates. So as long as this guy didn't break the law (he didn't), he got re-elected. 4. It is the conservatives who insist on a moral standard for the politicians. So it is certainly fair game for all of us to point out if their politicians do not measure up to their moral standard. 5. All the evidence so far points to the possibility that Mark Foley did in fact break the law (that he himself helped to pass). That is a major difference here that all of you conservatives are trying hard to ignore. 6. I'd be quite willing to accept if you simply drop your sense of moral superiority and admit that we're all the same. After all, there are just as many corrupt Republicans as there are corrupt Democrats. Family values any more?
You libelous bastard. No one is defending peophiles, except the ACLU and the Democrat from 1983, who defended his right to screw underage kids. Foley has resigned in DISGRACE, and he will drift off into no-man's land and most likely put a bullet in his head. If he has broken the law, he should and will go straight to prison. Your first point is ridiculous... The DEMOCRAT DEFENDED HIS PEDOPHILE RIGHTS AND MAINTAINED HIS POSITION! The republican resigned in shame. WE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME ... I'm not a sick-freak who stalks kids. I'm not sure what's more disgusting, a fricking congressman sending lewd emails to a 16 year old, or how the Democrats will attempt to use this to their political advangate for the next month. "Moral Superiority" ... BLAH. Answer these: Are we, as a society, becoming MORE or LESS moral? If LESS, should efforts be made to reinforce MORALITY?
Yes, you are defending pedophiles. By not allowing Democrats to score political points over the Foley scandal, you are in effect telling the politicians that yes, pedophiles are fine as long as they are Republicans. Do you understand why we need elections? It's precisely for situations like this - if you screw up, you pay the political price. Unless, it is your belief that the opposition party are supposed to be forever in opposition, no matter how bad the party in power has become. We have a name for that. That's called a dictatorship. Hastert sat on the information that Foley was preying on teenage page boys for almost a year and did nothing. Do you think this is forgivable because Hastert is a Republican? Do you not believe that Hastert has to pay a political price for it? If the opposition is not allowed to point out what's wrong with the ruling party, then what do we need democracy for? This exposes what the Republican party is about. They don't give a damn about "family values." All they care is the power.