I think the horror is that abuse becomes an imprint. Chey, I admire you for your commitment to children. You work everyday to make a difference. ((hugs))

"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There's no point in being a damn fool about it." attributed to W. C. Fields

Cheyanne,

As am I madam. As is anyone who hopes for a future better than the past. As is anyone who has sufficient empathy to feel offended when those who should know better – and DO know better – default on their promises.

Rage will not solve today’s failures, nor make good the failings of the past.



Denial will not put them beyond the tribe which bore them. We raised them, taught them, elected them, and will elect the ever-so-same humans which will follow them into the offices they leave behind.

Good with a phrase but hardly someone I'd seek for advice.

Lilith,

He matched his vision with reality. He was successful.

Once upon a time..... some of us would bet our life on that in the U.S. too. :(

By some's warped standards so was Rep. Foley.

Lilith,

By a MAJORITY's standards.

Hmmm. My definition of success definitely veers drastically from what you seem to perceive. In my eyes, just because a majoority of the voter's in his district elected him to an office does not in any way make him a success. As a human he's a failure.

Lilith,

I agree with you! Your definition of success definitely veers drastically from what those who put him in office perceive, or to be current – perceived, to be success.

He ran, unless I am mistaken, as a politician - not a human, which you have assessed as a failure. I wonder, now that you have assessed him as a failed human, do you see him as sub human?

Doesn't this bring us back to Lil's comment about the needle? We may disagree in the nitty gritty, but the sentiment that these people should be excluded permanently from society seems to be pretty well agreed.

I agree. If someone knew and did nothing, out they should go.

Oldfart,

Sorry, no.

To do so is to say that there exists a class of people who are beyond redemption. While we may all agree that such a class exists, it is most unlikely that we will agree upon its membership. If, as I suspect, this is true, then I am unwilling to consign anyone, even those who I consider truly loathsome to a sub human status. To do so is to crate a caste system more horrific than India ever had.

There is no knuckle dragging political Neanderthal chanting “My country, right or wrong!”, nor any lily livered pacifist whining “Peace at any cost!” who cannot - in principle - be reasoned with. No one said that civilized behavior would be easy or painless, only that is a preferable state to a non sentient “us good – them bad” frame of reference. To be that way is to be as bad as those who we condemn.

I feel confident that everyone who reads these words has, at one time or another, fallen, and has been grateful for the assistance, be it either tough or tender love, extended by others which helped them back up.

Problems exist. Problems can and should be corrected. Unlike some, I prefer not to give up on others.

No one aside from you has called him or anyone else "sub-human".


Fallen?????In my view he is a sexual predator and those who would be his prey deserve to be protected. Whether a politician, a teacher, a priest or a Boy Scout leader, people in a position of trust should act in a way deserving of that trust. For me in this case people we were supposed to be able to trust, did and/or hid crimes against children. It's that simple.

Lilith,

I disagree with you. Reality is not simple.

I ask you again, now that you have assessed him as a failed human, do you see him as sub human? If not, then how can you describe him as a failed human?

Boy you love to argue semantics when your opinions are not being accepted. You take every attempt at discussion and drag it to debate. Sucks the life out of so many serious discussion threads.

subhuman~ Below the human race in evolutionary development.

Nope. I said he failed as a human. His development is fine. His choices respresent his failure.

I'll not be responding to you again. I started this thread to hear the opinions and engage in a discussion with everyone here not to discuss it with you solely.

10-4

Lilith,

Ah well, such is life...you win a few, you lose a few, and some get rained out. :)

Do you think someone knew?

Does everyone understand that these "children" are 17 and 18 years old. Old enough to fight and die, old enough to know right from wrong. And Lilith the Congressman in charge of the Page progam knew and his is not of Foley's party.

I suspect so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/w...on/03media.html

This is from CNN

"The lawmaker who oversees the page program, Rep. John Shimkus, a Republican from Illinois, said that he learned about Foley's e-mails in late 2005 and "took immediate action to investigate the matter."

Scarecrow,

"At least two news organizations were tipped off to e-mail messages sent by Representative Mark Foley long before the story of his sexually explicit remarks to teenage pages broke last week."

I guess they should be consigned to perdition also.

I bet he could "do a hell of a job" at FEMA too. :cool:

Scarecrow,

The number I read was 16, which along with 17 is below the age of consent in the USA, a fact of law rather than a statement of the readiness of the child to make informed choices.

jseal,

There are some people who we must sadly remove from mainstream, as one reluctantly severs a gangrenous hand. It's not for revenge, just self defence.

Oldfart,

In re winnowing out the undesirables: of course societies must protect themselves. Does anyone reading this post honestly believe that the good Mr. Foley will regain his position of power? Does anyone reading this post honestly believe that he will ever again run for public office? Of course not. But if he did, and if he was able to persuade a majority of the voters in that campaign that he would be able to improve their lives, is it for me, or you, or anyone else to prevent those voters from doing what they think best for themselves?

If there is good reason to believe he violated the law, then bring an indictment against him and try him in a court of law. If he is found guilty, assess an appropriate penalty. Here in the States dozens of politicos are indicted each year, usually bringing their visions of a New World Order to an abrupt halt. Tom DeLay, the former House Majority Leader, is a recent example of such a fall from political grace. If you want an entry from the other side of the aisle, Wilbur Mills, who headed the House Ways and Means Committee comes to mind. The legal pruning shears are quite active and effective – although some would have you believe otherwise.

You did raise a significant issue with your observation in re the burden of proof required – and why.

Yes sir, quite correct – and eminently justified.

Consider the case of President Clinton's Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, forced out of office in 1994 by allegations that he improperly took gifts from businesses and lobbyists.

Independent Council Donald C. Smaltz spent more than four years and seventeen million dollars to prosecute Secretary Espy, and the result was thirty “Not Guilty” declarations from the foreman of the trial jury. A guilty verdict could have sent him to prison.

You and I and … others ... don’t even play in the same league. Yes. The rules are different.

As Secretary Espy said of Smaltz, "He's not unlike any other schoolyard bully … You have to stand up to him. You have to let him know you're not going to back down, and sooner or later it's going to be okay."

I was under the impression that trial and retribution was a a focus of this thread, not just a kangaroo court and summary execution.

Oldfart,

Yes sir. Not just a kangaroo court and summary execution.

Still, the temptation is there.

One could argue that people stop voting on the same basis. They've accepted that politicians are who they are and that it doesn't matter which one gets into office...for the end results will be the same. At the end of the day, it's in their natural order to serve themselves instead of who they represent.

I voted for Former Governer John G. Rowland. He made a remarkable Congressman, and was on the fast-track to becoming President. When allegations arose surrounding his business relationship with a state contractor, I listened to what everyone had to say and watched the writing on the wall. As the investigation took roots and a fuzzy picture started to become clearer, I got pissed. I trusted him to make decisions in Connecticut's best interest, not his own. Am I not supposed to be mad? Am I supposed to think "Oh well, he's only human, thus prone to this behavior."? I'm sorry, but I don't take gifts in exchange for awarding lucrative state contracts. I follow the rules, and I abhor those that don't. I wanted to see him serve jail time. Hell, I'd have driven him there myself! He didn't start out corrupt, but he didn't have that little voice inside of him that said "Bad Fucking Idea" either, and that's not a foible. And that's something I don't have to accept...from him or anyone else that I've hired.

I'm sorry, but I expect people in positions of trust to conduct themselves with dignity and respect...for the position itself, and with respect for those that "hired" them. They should never forget why they were put there and what they were put there to do. Rowland was not there to get free hot tubs and trips to Vegas...and Foley was not put there to use subordinates to satisfy his sexual needs.

[QUOTE=Oldfart]Scarecrow,

The number I read was 16, which along with 17 is below the age of consent in the USA, a fact of law rather than a statement of the readiness of the child to make informed choices.
QUOTE]

Oldfart they have to be 16 to apply, but do not take the postion until age 17 and it is a 6 month apaintment. And the age of consent in most states for sex is 16 and is as low as 14 in some states. I have not seen any laws that were broken, just morals.

Now if you want to get mad about a crime;


Five girls dead after Amish school shootings
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061003...e_schools_dc_22

that shooting is horrible. worse than horrible. it's also the third in a week here in the us :( and not all that far from where we live either.




perhaps someone else will know for sure, but i think the adam walsh act (a section of it co-sponsored in part by foley :rolleyes2) made it illegal, a felony in fact, to solicit a minor for sex over the internet. if i remember, the big deal with the bill is that it removes this doubt of consent and age and what state has what age of consent or if the kid lied and said they were thirty. it’s now a federal law to solicit a minor for sex and there’s no bullshit. this is the same bill that aims to help make the internet safer for kids from internet predators and from accidentally stumbling onto a porn site, too…uhm… i think. i’m just a font of reliable info. :p

in any event, i'm not even sure it matters how old the boys were. if they can't get him on a legality, at the very least he's out of office. for the damage he's done to his own party, i'm sure they'll have him blackballed permanently. i don't think he deserves the needle but i didn’t think lil was being literal there...could be wrong though.

wyndhy,

If true, an entertaining resolution, no? :)

Bastard didn't shoot himself before he did the damage, damn shame.

But did he actualy solicit a minor for sex? Or was he just graffic in his IMs. There is a fine point of law there. Of all the parts and pieces I have hear or seen of the IMs there was no solicitation.

Scarecrow,
You read those IMs and don't think he did anything wrong?

Wrong or Criminal? Is there a difference?

Is your name Scarecrow?

WildIrish,

It was not my intent to leave you with an impression that I condone criminal behavior. To the extent that I have, my poor use of English is probably to blame. My relatively blasé attitude towards our elected officials may also contribute to that impression, although I have posted more than once my satisfaction that Mr. Foley’s IM adventures are now over.

The part I find bemusing is the seething, vitriolic hatred expressed by some, the extraordinary claims made, and the astonishing ideas of retribution. It seems to me to be so utterly wasteful. I am reminded of the fulminations towards President Clinton a few years ago. It seems so disproportionate.

You, I, Cheyanne, and all normal people are upset, disappointed and angered when we learn about theft, fraud, or any abuse of power. I have tried to suggest in my previous posts that there are two basic ways to replace elected officials: by voting and by prosecution. Most are replaced by votes.

I guess I’m asking why people expect what they do from politicians. Is it because we invest so much of our hopes in them? It seems to me that if we really thought so little of them as some claim, we wouldn’t be as angry or upset as I read. I remember being embarrassed when President Clinton’s behavior towards women was documented. I voted for him, and I felt that he let me down. But at the same time he was in most ways an active, effective Chief Executive, so why did I, along with many others, have such a difficult time with his extra-marital affairs?