posted October 01, 2006 09:11 PM              

I find it really disgusting...

Particularly that he was part of the exploited childrens caucus and was still such a PERVERT

quote:

---

ABC News reported Friday that it had obtained sexually explicit Internet exchanges between Foley and several former pages, all male. In one message, ABC said, Foley wrote: "Do I make you a little horny?"

---

quote:

---

In another message, Foley wrote, "You in your boxers, too? ... Well, strip down and get relaxed." Foley, as chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, had introduced legislation in July to protect children from exploitation by adults over the Internet. He also sponsored other legislation designed to protect minors from abuse and neglect.

---

posted October 01, 2006 11:26 PM            

Gerry Studds was a congressman from Massachusetts who had an ongoing sexual relationship with a congressional page.

Now, there's no excuse whatsoever for Foley but the hypocrisy is getting a little thick here. So far, I haven't seen any allegations of a physical sexual relationship between Foley and a congressional page...or any other minor.

Republicans made sure Foley is finished in politics, he resigned immediately. Speaker of the House Dennis Hassart has asked the Attorney General for a Justice Dept investigation of Foley.

Here's the difference and the hypocrisy.

Gerry Studds was censured by the House..censured only, not kicked out, not investigated criminally.

Studds kept running for Congress and was reelected for 5, count em, 5 (five) additional times to Congress in the very same district. Studd's story was that it was no one else's business.

Difference between democrats and Republicans. When we find someone is over the line, we deal with them and they're gone. When democrats find corruption in their ranks, they celebrate it.

"Gerry Studds, Democratic Congressman for Massachusetts.

Congressional page sex scandal
Studds is remembered chiefly for his role in the Congressional page sex scandal in 1983, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with a minor – in Studds's case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page.

As the House read their censure of him, Studds turned his back and ignored them. Later, at a press conference with the former page standing beside him, the two stated that what had happened between them was nobody's business but their own.

posted October 01, 2006 11:44 PM              

quote:

---

Studds is remembered chiefly for his role in the Congressional page sex scandal in 1983, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with a minor – in Studds's case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page.

---

I think its also hilarious how it says hes remembered 'chiefly' for this scandal. If a congressman doesn't have much else to be remembered by except his sexual misconduct, thats really quite sad.

posted October 02, 2006 02:28 AM              

DD, Ive been to Dubai and will be flying out to Sharjah in December for an overseas interview. Dubai is really beautiful. Its a hybrid of Arab and western culture; it has a lot of great mosques , but on the other hand its a big club and luxury hot spot for the ME... you would have to check out the Burg Dubai and the man made islands (The palm), and dont forget to go jewelry shopping My moms been to Dubai a few times as well. Of course each different city has its own personality.. (Al Ain, Abu Dhabi, Fujairah and Sharjah, besides Dubai are must sees). I have to warn you though; if you hang at the wrong places or don't speak any arabic at all, there will be some hostility (as the French are a little bit hostile to those who don't even try to speak any French when they go to France). Id suggest a good phrasebook or some study beforehand. And be wary of 'helpful guides' who might rip you off

posted October 02, 2006 12:56 PM            

No one here is excusing Foley. It's also been posted that the Speaker of the House of Representatives has sent a request to the Attorney General of the United States to open a criminal investigation of Foley by the Justice Department.

That only sounds like a cover-up to the brain dead. If nothing else Blue, you are reliable.

posted October 02, 2006 03:10 PM            

Perhaps your question would be better suited to the people who continued to elect Gerry Studds back in the time before many of us could vote.

As far as the cover up, are you trying to deny that Republican leadership didn't have a whif of this late last year and early this year?

quote:

---

GOP Leader Rebuts Hastert on Foley
Reynolds: Speaker Knew of E-Mails in Spring

By Jonathan Weisman and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, October 1, 2006; A01

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) was notified early this year of inappropriate e-mails from former representative Mark Foley (R-Fla.) to a 16-year-old page, a top GOP House member said yesterday -- contradicting the speaker's assertions that he learned of concerns about Foley only last week.

Hastert did not dispute the claims of Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.), and his office confirmed that some of Hastert's top aides knew last year that Foley had been ordered to cease contact with the boy and to treat all pages respectfully.

Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, became the second senior House Republican to say that Hastert has known of Foley's contacts for months, prompting Democratic attacks about the GOP leadership's inaction. Foley abruptly resigned his seat Friday.

House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post on Friday that he had learned in late spring of inappropriate e-mails Foley sent to the page, a boy from Louisiana, and that he promptly told Hastert, who appeared to know already of the concerns. Hours later, Boehner contacted The Post to say he could not be sure he had spoken with Hastert. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093001265.html

---

posted October 02, 2006 03:12 PM            

You know, it's really nobody's business what he does. Quit being so uptight about it.

(Sound familiar?)

posted October 02, 2006 03:41 PM            

So saying that before "many of us" could vote is not actually true.

"Reps. Dan Crane (R-Ill.) and Gerry Studds (D-Mass.)
The House ethics committee on July 14, 1983, announced that Crane and Studds had sexual relationships with teenage congressional pages – Crane with a 17-year-old female in 1980, Studds with a 17-year-old male in 1973. Both admitted the charges that same day, and Studds acknowledged he was gay. The committee voted to reprimand the two, but a back-bench Georgia Republican named Newt Gingrich argued that they should be expelled. The full House voted on July 20 instead to censure the two, the first time that ever happened for sexual misconduct. Crane, married and the father of six, was tearful in his apology to the House, while Studds refused to apologize. Crane's conservative district voted him out in 1984, while the voters in Studds's more liberal district were more forgiving. Studds won reelection in 1984 with 56 percent of the vote, and continued to win until he retired in 1996. "

________________

Gingrich called for both of them to be expelled. The Conservative was contrite, the Liberal was defiant.

The Conservative lost the vote - the Liberal kept getting voted IN...

posted October 02, 2006 06:14 PM            

"us" and "many" are qualifiers. You were old enough to vote. Since when did BR qualify as "many". Then again... he is a Sag and there are at least two of us.

:P

posted October 02, 2006 06:14 PM            

Some will impugn a Republican for doing something that, when a Democrat does it, is treated with a "get over it", "lighten up", or "it was just a blow job..."

posted October 02, 2006 06:33 PM            

In another thread I posted ALL of the scandels over the past few decades that have plagued Congress. It shows an equal balance. Humans, regardless of Religion, political party or ethnicity are capable of being corrupt. Pure and simple.

posted October 02, 2006 06:42 PM            

Isis,

posted October 02, 2006 07:36 PM            

The other person censured along with Studds was a Republican, Daniel Crane. Crane wasn't booted out by congressional members either. His constituents booted Crane out in the next election. Crane had been a 3 term Congressman before the electorate booted him from office.

acoustic, I take exception with your suggestion the Republican House Leadership knew about Foley and did nothing.

They knew about the email..to one page..which asked for a picture and could not be considered as a sexually suggestive communication but there's no mention anywhere they knew about the recent crop of IM's Foley sent to others...until the story broke Friday. Further, Foley was counseled by the Leadership who didn't overlook anything.

posted October 02, 2006 11:58 PM              

Sounds grande!! Ive seen the man made palm shaped islands off the web...looks amazing. What will the interview be for- if you dont mind me asking?

Im really interested in where you stayed while you were in Dubai...Im looking for decent, relatively inexpensive accomodation. Do you know people there?

posted October 03, 2006 12:48 PM            

"The Democratic party usually doesn't lay claim to that or other personal morals , or encourages non-majority, non-mainstream sexuality tolerance as part of their platform so I guess it doesn't reflect as poorly on them. I mean to say that they don't have a unified moral stance on those sorts of issues like the Republican party."

posted October 03, 2006 01:26 PM            

Why must good intelligent folk like AG always have to act as the voice of reason to counter the whack-job go go kill republican party? If only the neocons could just accept actual facts, and not distort them to justify their destructive agenda.