What's the difference between eighteen and sixteen? The penitentiary, that's what. Mark Foley has much to be penitent about, but, if the information coming from the DrudgeReport holds water, he will not need to serve his penance behind bars. Andrew Sullivan, an authority I trust on such matters, points out that Washington, DC's age-of-consent law makes sixteen the threshold, and the Internet predator laws that Congressman Foley helped craft makes one's eighteenth birthday the relevant date. The Congressional page, it turns out, was eighteen--though ABC News described him as "under eighteen"--when he engaged with Congressman Mark Foley in the most lurid of the web conversations detailed on the news outfit's website.
If the other gross conversations occurred before the page's eighteenth birthday, then the revelation probably won't mean a whole lot for Mark Foley's legal problems. For ABC, on the other hand, the revelation does mean a whole lot.
ABC News got the story wrong. What Rathergate was to the 2004 election cycle, ABC's botched reporting on Mark Foley's interest in "mentoring" young men may prove to be to this year's races. It has knocked every other news item--Iraq, the surging Dow, dropping gas prices--off the frontpage. To paraphrase Lucy, ABC gotta lotta splainin to do. Why did they sit on the story in August? Why did they misreport something so legally crucial as the page's age? Why don't they describe how they got the story and who gave it to them?
What of Mark Foley? The best that can be said of his situation is that his attorneys breathe a little easier today. Liberals, with all their rhetoric about "consenting adults," have no right to disparage Foley's character any further should the Florida Republican's chat pal turn out to have been eighteen when the exchanges occurred. After all, the congressman will have lived his life according to their precepts. If the scandal causes any liberals to have an epiphany on the tired mantras they have been spouting for the last forty years, then I welcome their continued criticism of Foley. If they wish to continue to advocate such bankrupt principles, they should kindly shut up about this.
Conservatives, on the other hand, don't buy into any "consenting adults" nonsense, at least outside the legal sense. Eighteen is still a kid, particularly in relation to a fiftysomething dance partner. Morality and ethics, and not just the law, matter. A congressman who lacks judgment enough to know that he shouldn't pursue congressional pages should not serve as a delegate for any community. In other words, Foley owed it to his constituents to resign. After Gerry Studds and Bill Clinton defiantly acted as though their antagonists, and not them, had something to apologize for, Foley's fate may seem harsh. It's not. Studds and Clinton just got off easy.
The trick that liberalism pulls is to use sexual immorality as a means of political control, so that is why the party that supports the sexual revolution can use the resistance of voters of the party that (only nominally) opposes that agenda as a means of undermining their opponents. This is also why Democrats like Clinton get away with rape.
Wasn't it Larry Flynt, for example, who set-up Jimmy Swaggart w/ prostitutes to get the photos to destroy him? I think I am remembering it right. Anyway, the idea ia that you promote the liberation of people's libidos and then you expose them, or threaten to expose them for their sexual trysts or perversions in order to manipulate them. Or you exploit the reaction and disgust of those opposed to the activities by outing your enemies as hypocrites.
Its not our fault conervatives are afraid of sex.
Sex is a natural part of human life get used to it.
Sex with a minor on the other hand, is wrong and illegal.
OH and BTW The Hill is reporting the leaker WAS A REPUBLICAN STAFFER.
So much for blame the dems.
I think Studds and Clinton get off easy because they were known beforehand to be pigs. They did not pass themselves off as members of the morality party. And Clinton, and probably Studds, had sordid histories and reputations. Politicians often pass themselves off as stable family men. When they disappoint they must be punished severely. McGreevey is out of a job for the same reason.
"Its not our fault conervatives are afraid of sex.
Sex is a natural part of human life get used to it." -HeHe
What's the relevance? Who has the Sexual Revolution made happier than before? The surging teen pregnancies, broken homes, children raised out of wedlock, welfare mothers, crack babies, etc, etc, etc, are supposed to make us happy?
Great. Thanks for liberating us. Kindly butt the hell out in the future.
Sex is a natural part of human life get used to it." -HeHe
Aids, a disease is a natural part of life as are breast cancer,brain tumors, birth defects etc..etc..
It could also be said since rape has been around forever that it's a natural part of human life as are murder, killing and stealing.
Minors have been getting pregnant by adults since the begining of time also, it's a natural part of life, so why condem it?
Death is a natural part of life, so why should we fight disease and illness?
Wasn't there a post earlier having to do with Conservatives out re-producing Liberals?
So, if Conservatives are having more babies, it appears that they are certainly not afraid of sex. It also seems evident that they are enjoying the sex and that, ultimately, they know what its for.
I get a kick out of that Desperate Housewives commercial that shows a dude going south of the border on Marcia Cross and, for which, she's aghast to say that she doesn't do that kind of thing because she's a Republican. Yeah....riiiight.
"Sex is a natural part of human life get used to it."
What you need is to be educated on the word "natural," but "pearl before swine" as the saying goes.
He He,
What would you say if foley had had sex with an 18 year old girl and subsequently had helped her get an abortion? Sex is natural right? A woman has the right to choose , right.
I welcome your response.
Ross, of course he would. Webster and HeHe were simply proving the accuracy of my charge about the way that the sexually "liberated" (where liberation in perfect Orwellian fashion actually means "enslaved" to one's every inclination and desire however sordid or irrational) create the cultural chaos and then achieve power through manipulating it.
Btw, this tactic of sexual revolution as means of totalitarian control is a classic one, it dates back to at least the French Revolution and was frankly perfected by the Nazis. An excellent historian, Dagmar Herzog, has written an great book on the topic in "Sex After Fascism," as well as in numerous articles.
Yeah Ross.
Foley was a middle aged single man.
If he had sex with a 18 year old girl I'd give him a high five.
Now I don't like abortions, but lucky for us reality based people there's a little thing called CONDOMS.
I know your pastor says its a sin, but if you but it on before you have sex POOF! It protects you from AIDS and pregnacies.
OH and there's also a pill women can take to prevent pregnacy too. Just to let you know.
Abortions are rare in this country, and the propoition that sex inevitable leads to abortion is wrong.
I'll say it agian, if Mark Foley had sex with a 19 year old girl I would be the first to congratuate the man on a job well done.
Bruce, I understand your point about slavery being sold as liberation.
Its actually more of a Huxley notion than an Orwellian one. (In Orwell sex is actually extemely repressed. There are Comittees of Virtue that punish people who engage in sexual activity. Bernard has to sneak into the countryside just to make love to his lover. etc. In Huxley it is more open. Children have orgies for fun, adults change partners on a nightly basis, etc.)
But the case against overly loose sexual mores doesen't prove the case for overly strong ones.
And at the end of the day I trust individual people to make their own sexual decisions more than I trust a the govenment or the clergy.
Ummm....Opus you're freaking me out buddy.
I guess I thought you could understand the implicit message that sex is a natural and GOOD part of life.
Its nothing to be afraid of.
STDs are serious, but preventable if you're smart about it.
Ditto with pregnacies.
I don't see why we should "Fight" aginst sex.
That really puts you into the mindset of a conervative right there.
Scary stuff dude.
Scary stuff.
Ben-T you are the first to suggest that crack babies are the result of the sexual revlution.
Really?
Crack babies?
Don't you think that might have had something to do with...I dunno... CRACK??
Speaking of which, PUT THE PIPE DOWN!!
You're seriously tweaking.
Bruce that is the most retarded comment I have ever heard.
Republicans use sex as a tool for control. HELLO!!!
The whole "if you have sex before you're married you're going to hell" argument.
Democrats just believe in individual freedom. Within certain limits- pedephalia is one- consenting people should be allowed to do whatever they want, whenever they want.
That's called freedom baby.
The people who oppose sexual freedom are weak people afraid of their freedom. They hide behind old superstitions and taboos about sex becuase they are scared to make sexual decisions for themselves.
"Ben-T you are the first to suggest that crack babies are the result of the sexual revlution.
Really?
Crack babies?
Don't you think that might have had something to do with...I dunno... CRACK??
Speaking of which, PUT THE PIPE DOWN!!
You're seriously tweaking." -HeHe
If you're actually suggesting that the drug epidemic in America is not linked with the cultural revolution of the 60s-in general, then you're an idiot.
(Sorry to double post)
"Ummm....Opus you're freaking me out buddy.
I guess I thought you could understand the implicit message that sex is a natural and GOOD part of life.
Its nothing to be afraid of.
STDs are serious, but preventable if you're smart about it.
Ditto with pregnacies.
I don't see why we should "Fight" aginst sex.
That really puts you into the mindset of a conervative right there.
Scary stuff dude.
Scary stuff." -HeHe
I remove my qualifier. You are an idiot. Also a liar. Opus said we should fight disease, not fight sex. His point was that maybe there is some sense in having some cultural restrictions on how people conduct themselves.
And has been pointed out, conservatives are hardly "afraid" of sex. Families tend to have more children in red states than in blue states.
So do please stop lying about what Opus said, liar.
Yes Ben-T I am suggesting just that.
These illegal drugs are addictive substances. The rise in drug use in the US coresponds to their increasing avilability accross the country, which in turn depends on revulutions in the fields of agriculture and transportation, not morality.
Wages, BTW have been declining since the early 1970's. So has education. Might that have something to do with incrasing drug use??
You're proably a Southern good ol' boy who can't understand our city slicker ways, but I'm from Detroit and I can tell you firsthand that crackheads do not take crack because they listen to too much Bob Dylan.
They take crack because it is a powerful substance that hijacks their brain's dopamine reward system to produce feelings of pleasure. Which- living in the worst gehtto in the Western World- they have too little of.
Our friends at ABC have some interesting facts about us sexophobic conservatives.
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/News/story?id=180291
_______________
The poll an-lysis includes a breakdown by many subgroups, including region, age and even political party affiliation, which is the topic of results released today:
Of those involved in a committed relationship, who is very satisfied with their relationship?
Republicans 87 percent; Democrats 76 percent
Who is very satisfied with their sex life?
Republicans 56 percent; Democrats 47 percent
The poll an-lysis also reveals who has worn something sexy to enhance their sex life:
Republicans 72 percent; Democrats 62 percent
When asked whether they had ever faked an orgasm, more Democrats (33 percent) than Republicans (26 percent) said they had.
Marcus you are just indulging HeHe's prurient immaturity. The "conservatives like sex better" argument misses the point. Only the traditionalists on sexual morality even understand what human sexuality is.
The revolutionaries celebrate sex detached from reason, morality, and its natural ends. They are a barren people who destroy the beauty of sex by reducing it to a sub-animal level of purely egotistical pleasure. They like to suffocate people's spirits and destroy their dignity by making them cheap pieces of meat and so sex becomes no more than mutual onanism and vanity. This is why the homosexual male is contemporary culture's icon.
Sex for the "free love" crowd, and more generally for liberals is a mechanical thing in which the sex object is utterly replaceable. Only a monogamous heterosexual commitment for life (used to be known as "marriage") is a proper sexual union worthy of the dignity of irreplaceable, individuated rational animals.
OK Bruce.
Having an open mind about sex= "purient".
Congratulations. You know can speak legalese.
On your "point", you seem to be equating sex with "free love" and "cheap pieces of meat".
Sex doesn't have to be that way. Its clear that you're just scared to find that out.
You're right. Sex CAN BE cheap. And CAN BE undignified. IT CAN BE painful.
But it doesn't have to be. And yours is no argument for the sexual prudishness of many Republican supporters.
And not to let your gay-bashing go unnoticed:
Homosexuality does not equal immorality.
Its a condition present in a certain percentage of every human community.
It isn't a choice. It isn't a sin.
That's another one your preacher should have told you, but didn't.
HeHe, you're certainly the master of the stereotype, eh?! As long as blind labeling keeps you in a comfort zone, so be it.
Suppose if it makes feel good about your limited little world to think that all Republicans and / or Conservatives are war mongering, sex phobic religious zealots, then we wouldn't want to rock your world.
