Oh, Geez !!??!! - Page 2

widgeon13 · 10-04-2006, 10:19 AM

Not to stir the pot here but is 16 years of age considered adult status (legal age for consent, whatever the legal term is) in DC? There have been references to this above and I did not see a definitive answer. I do not know so obviously curious. I'm not trying to splt hairs but if that is the case what are the implications? If the pages are 16, are they considered adults or children.

i'm asking this question and hoping for a civil answer not asking with the intent of starting WWIII, so please be gentle.

lendaddy · 10-04-2006, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
I think, len, part of the "outrage" is really centered in the involvement of the individual in a program that put him in contact with the kids. I dunno...kinda like hiring a pedophile to run your daycare center.

That is a good point and I honestly don't know if that position actually gives you more or less access to the kids or if it's just a paper position. My friends fiance' was a page (or intern I forget) in D.C. 8 years ago so maybe I'll ask her.

lendaddy · 10-04-2006, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by widgeon13
Not to stir the pot here but is 16 years of age considered adult status (legal age for consent, whatever the legal term is) in DC? There have been references to this above and I did not see a definitive answer. I do not know so obviously curious. I'm not trying to splt hairs but if that is the case what are the implications? If the pages are 16, are they considered adults or children.

i'm asking this question and hoping for a civil answer not asking with the intent of starting WWIII, so please be gentle.

I'm with you, I heard on several sources that it's 16 including some Dem pundit slamming Hastert on CNN.

Jim Richards · 10-04-2006, 10:32 AM

In my non-legal view of all of this, the federal treatment of this issue is that a child is a minor until they are 18 years old and this is a crime. Here's some interesting links. Bottom line, the moral equivalence BS in this and the earlier thread is a smokescreen. Regardless of political affiliation, this kind of behavior is unacceptable.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002251----000-.html

Definition of a minor:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060727-7.html

lendaddy · 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim Richards
Regardless of political affiliation, this kind of behavior is unacceptable.

Absolutely, which is why no one is supporting Foley.

But here you have a Congress that was told to mind their business about Stubbs, but act on a hint regarding Foley. This is not about Foley, it's about Hastert.

So Jim please stop with pushing the idea that I'm trying to OK Foley's actions by bringing up Studds. That's not what I'm doing.

Moneyguy1 · 10-04-2006, 10:38 AM

No one may be "supporting" Foley, but some are "damning him with faint praise", trying to minimize his guilt and blame it on other factors.

"No one denies that what Foley did was dispicable, but he was abused."

Always some one else is to blame.

Jim Richards · 10-04-2006, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lendaddy
So Jim please stop with pushing the idea that I'm trying to OK Foley's actions by bringing up Studds. That's not what I'm doing.

THEN WHY KEEP BRINGING IT UP? I sure as hell don't condone earlier actions, regardless of what others let slide. And it sure as hell doesn't hurt us as a society to improve how we deal with wrong behavior. One wrong doesn't justify all future wrongs of the same ilk.

Rodeo · 10-04-2006, 10:48 AM

The "party of personal responsibility" wouldn't know responsibility if it bit them in the ass.

For Exhibit A, see daddy's posts.

This country is going to hell, and anyone that has the courage to say so is immediately branded a traitor or lefty or partisan or appeaser by our leadership.

And some citizens continue to do nothing but defend the indefensible.

lendaddy · 10-04-2006, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim Richards
THEN WHY KEEP BRINGING IT UP? I sure as hell don't condone earlier actions, regardless of what others let slide. And it sure as hell doesn't hurt us as a society to improve how we deal with wrong behavior. One wrong doesn't justify all future wrongs of the same ilk.

Please read my posts in the future or just put me on ignore. I said I brought it up to bring you into the mindset of those condemned for not acting on Foley's original non-sexual e-mail. They worked along side Studds and were told what he did was his business. Now the people that were told this are supposed to act on this potentially innocent act with sweeping immediate action?

That is why I brought it up. I can't make it any clearer, so if you still think that's me trying to OK Foley's actions I cannot help you.

dd74 · 10-04-2006, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
No one may be "supporting" Foley, but some are "damning him with faint praise", trying to minimize his guilt and blame it on other factors.

"No one denies that what Foley did was dispicable, but he was abused."

Always some one else is to blame.

Yeah, like LaHood from Illinois. The call to disband the pages as an "antiquated system" was ridiculous and somehow palpable with Foley's behavior.

Just admit it: Foley is/was a pervert, everyone knew, congress failed to protect the pages from this guy, and the Republicans were the ones keeping it, as one might say, "in the closet," Hastert included, who was informed by his deputies and staff of Foley's behavior.

lendaddy · 10-04-2006, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moneyguy1

"No one denies that what Foley did was dispicable, but he was abused."

Always some one else is to blame.

That would indeed be pathetic, but I haven't seen anyone say that other than Foley and his Lawyer.

Jim Richards · 10-04-2006, 10:51 AM

dude, your Hastert edit hadn't shown up yet on your last post when I was typing my reply. It's kinda hard to hit a moving target, but I'll keep trying.

Moneyguy1 · 10-04-2006, 10:51 AM

Newt?

lendaddy · 10-04-2006, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim Richards
dude, your Hastert edit hadn't shown up yet on your last post when I was typing my reply. It's kinda hard to hit a moving target, but I'll keep trying.

Hastert edit?

Jim Richards · 10-04-2006, 10:57 AM

Last edited by lendaddy on 10-04-2006 at 01:38 PM

Len, if I'm wrong on that, I apologize.

Rodeo · 10-04-2006, 11:05 AM

Did daddy actually say that House leadership is responsible for not protecting the kids that it was responsible for protecting, then edit it out?

Com'on daddy, it's not that hard: "The House leadership is responsible for not protecting the kids it was responsible for protecting."

lendaddy · 10-04-2006, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim Richards
Last edited by lendaddy on 10-04-2006 at 01:38 PM

Len, if I'm wrong on that, I apologize.

No apology required I see how you would think that. I edit a lot and I'm sure that doesn't help.

lendaddy · 10-04-2006, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rodeo
Did daddy actually say that House leadership is responsible for not protecting the kids that it was responsible for protecting, then edit it out?

Com'on daddy, it's not that hard: "The House leadership is responsible for not protecting the kids it was responsible for protecting."

Of course they are. If Hastert knew nothing of the Foley situation at all....lets say he didn't even know Foley existed.....even then he would be responsible for keeping the kids safe. That's not the point.

Jim Richards · 10-04-2006, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lendaddy
No apology required I see how you would think that. I edit a lot and I'm sure that doesn't help.

Thanks. I'll make sure I don't read too fast before I respond.

lendaddy · 10-04-2006, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim Richards
Thanks. I'll make sure I don't read too fast before I respond.

No, I edited for spelling. The Hastert part has been the consistant point of my statements for 2 days now.