Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
Do you think putting a male prostitute on the government payroll was a good thing?

Well, I think that the Jeff Gannon thing was a horrible misstep, so yeah.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Emailing a sixteen year old about sex is a pederast? Sex with a sixteen year old is not paedophila, but emailing a sixteen year old about sex is paedophilia? Give this up - you are being an idiot. In many states having sex with a sixteen year old is not a crime. In the rest sex with a sixteen year is statutory rape, not a child molesting crime. Are you telling me you have never found a sixteen year old attractive? I am not defending Foley, I am just stating calling him a pederast is political grandstanding B.S. and feeds right into the Far Right Christian propaganda that all Homosexuals are Paedophiles.

There is a big difference between being attracted to a post pubescent and a prebubescent. There is a reason that child molesting is considered a much more heinous crime than statutory rape. Not that statutory rape isn't bad, just child molesting is a lot worse.

Wow. First, look up the definition of pederast.

Second, sounds like its not the gay community that defending pederasty here, but you.

I'm glad no one's circling the wagons.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Did you feel this way about Monica? Why is it different or worse, such that a resignation here is less excusable than a refusal to resign, along with false denials?

Exactly. Monicagate became a political issue based on the President's behavior. In this case, the guy is gone and that should be an end of the political portion of this with respect to him. As to the members of congress that may have covered this up, can justice investigate them or would a congressional investigation play a valid role? If justice has jurisdiction, then I see no reason for a congressional investigation.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Exactly. Monicagate became a political issue based on the President's behavior. In this case, the guy is gone and that should be an end of the political portion of this with respect to him. As to the members of congress that may have covered this up, can justice investigate them or would a congressional investigation play a valid role? If justice has jurisdiction, then I see no reason for a congressional investigation.

The guy was kept in charge of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. You think that's not a political issue?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Exactly. Monicagate became a political issue based on the President's behavior. In this case, the guy is gone and that should be an end of the political portion of this with respect to him. As to the members of congress that may have covered this up, can justice investigate them or would a congressional investigation play a valid role? If justice has jurisdiction, then I see no reason for a congressional investigation.

What if Hastert et al. knew that Foley was a problem for, say, five years and failed to do anything about it, but had no legal obligation to do so? Not a political issue in your view that they did nothing?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Exactly. Monicagate became a political issue based on the President's behavior. In this case, the guy is gone and that should be an end of the political portion of this with respect to him. As to the members of congress that may have covered this up, can justice investigate them or would a congressional investigation play a valid role? If justice has jurisdiction, then I see no reason for a congressional investigation.

Here's the crux - are you satisfied with only legal issues being addressed? It sounds like Foley broke the law, but based on what we know right now, Hastert merely covered up behavior in the House that put minor employees of the House in danger -- sounds like a potential civil claim, but not necessary criminal.

But is our only standard for the leadership of the House that we don't want them to be crooks?

I compare this much more to the scandal in the Catholic Church (though it is not of the same scale, obviously, as it doesn't involve many priests over many years) than to Monicagate. I don't think Hastert is as culpable as was Benard Law, for example, but from what I can see I think there is a legitimate question as to whether he has misused his authority - even if that misuse was not criminal.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Here's the crux - are you satisfied with only legal issues being addressed? It sounds like Foley broke the law, but based on what we know right now, Hastert merely covered up behavior in the House that put minor employees of the House in danger -- sounds like a potential civil claim, but not necessary criminal.

But is our only standard for the leadership of the House that we don't want them to be crooks?

I compare this much more to the scandal in the Catholic Church (though it is not of the same scale, obviously, as it doesn't involve many priests over many years) than to Monicagate. I don't think Hastert is as culpable as was Benard Law, for example, but from what I can see I think there is a legitimate question as to whether he has misused his authority - even if that misuse was not criminal.

I would assume that Hastert has no civil liability, either. But if he and other GOP leaders were told that Foley was a problem, and they chose to leave him be because it was the expedient thing to do, I think it reflects on their morals, their lack of leadership, and their essential corruption. Club says it's not a political issue -- the problem is that Hastert et al. apparently saw it as only a political issue.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'd be happy to compare fag hag status any time you want.

There is a major difference between looking young and being young. Gay obsession is with the appearance of youth and beauty. It is illegal to go after 16 year olds, even in San Francisco. Jail bait, they may be, but they're not ok to pursue.

They may not be paedophiles, but they sure as hell are pederasts, and to suggest that the entire gay community condones the behavior is painting with waaaaaaay too broad a brush.

1) I never said it wasn't illegal. But just because something is illegal, and people follow the law, doesn't mean they aren't tempted to break it.

2) I never said the homosexual community condones this activity. And to suggest otherwise is a B.S. straw man argument that is beneath you.

3) Yes there is a major difference between looking young and being young. But are you saying that homosexual men are attracted to men that look like they are sixteen, but not men that are sixteen? You know that is B.S. I said homosexuals are into youth. That is a fact.

4) Homosexuals are attracted to young men. There are tons of underage homosexual male prostitutes in the city and they earn the most money. The same works with female prostitutes. Does this mean that all gay men use prostitutes - no. But it shows were the proclivities are.

5) Homosexual men are attracted to young men just like heterosexual men are attracted to young women. One of the top fantasies among heterosexual men are girls in high school cheerleader outfits and catholic school uniforms. By stating this am I demonizing the heterosexual male community? No I am just stating a fact.

I should have said that most men are attracted to sixteen year olds - gay or straight (just most don't act on it), that way it would have been more PC, but that doesn't make what I said any less accurate.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Here's the crux - are you satisfied with only legal issues being addressed? It sounds like Foley broke the law, but based on what we know right now, Hastert merely covered up behavior in the House that put minor employees of the House in danger -- sounds like a potential civil claim, but not necessary criminal.

But is our only standard for the leadership of the House that we don't want them to be crooks?

I compare this much more to the scandal in the Catholic Church (though it is not of the same scale, obviously, as it doesn't involve many priests over many years) than to Monicagate. I don't think Hastert is as culpable as was Benard Law, for example, but from what I can see I think there is a legitimate question as to whether he has misused his authority - even if that misuse was not criminal.

The leadership of the Catholic Church has the actual authority to move a priest or even dismiss him. I don't believe being in a political leadership position gives one any specific authority to do anytihng like that, does it? Why didn't the Dem Senate leadership just kick Leiberman out?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky

I should have said that most men are attracted to sixteen year olds - gay or straight (just most don't act on it), that way it would have been more PC, but that doesn't make what I said any less accurate.

He speaks for the rest of the men on the board?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The leadership of the Catholic Church has the actual authority to move a priest or even dismiss him. I don't believe being in a political leadership position gives one any specific authority to do anytihng like that, does it? Why didn't the Dem Senate leadership just kick Leiberman out?

Again, the guy was kept in charge of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. This was something the leadership could have done something about.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Wow. First, look up the definition of pederast.

I did look it up. American Heritage said: "A man who has sexual relations, especially anal intercourse, with a boy". It also refers to paedophile as a synonym. The term male child is also used. So the inference is to a young boy or child, not a sixteen year old, or young man.

I would consider a Pederast a pervert or a sexual deviant. I would not consider a man who had sex with a sixteen year old boy a pervert or sexual deviant. What he did may be wrong, but not something most other homosexual men have an inkling to do.

Just as I would not consider a man that had sex with a sixteen year old girl a pervert or sexual deviant. It would be wrong, but not an unnatural proclivity.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The guy was kept in charge of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. You think that's not a political issue?

Maybe we are attaching different meanings to political issue. It's definitely a problem and if the leadership knew about it they need to resign or be booted.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Again, the guy was kept in charge of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. This was something the leadership could have done something about.

which does what? I assume they mostly hear testimony from experts, if they do anything at all- I know they can't take testimony from missing kids, as an example.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What if Hastert et al. knew that Foley was a problem for, say, five years and failed to do anything about it, but had no legal obligation to do so? Not a political issue in your view that they did nothing?

See my post to RT.