<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: FOLEY MATTER PROVES REPUBLICANS SUPPORT PERVERTS</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/09/30/foley-matter-proves-republicans-support-perverts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/09/30/foley-matter-proves-republicans-support-perverts/</link>
	<description>Politics served up with a smile... And a stilletto.</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 09:59:10 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Officious Pedant</title>
		<link>http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/09/30/foley-matter-proves-republicans-support-perverts/comment-page-4/#comment-342493</link>
		<dc:creator>Officious Pedant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Oct 2006 16:03:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/09/30/foley-matter-proves-republicans-support-perverts/#comment-342493</guid>
		<description>And when did he turn 18, Breaking? Or is that immaterial to your claim?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And when did he turn 18, Breaking? Or is that immaterial to your claim?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BreakingNow</title>
		<link>http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/09/30/foley-matter-proves-republicans-support-perverts/comment-page-4/#comment-341094</link>
		<dc:creator>BreakingNow</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Oct 2006 01:54:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/09/30/foley-matter-proves-republicans-support-perverts/#comment-341094</guid>
		<description>..oops, Breaking Now! looks like ABC LIED!  The 'kid' was 18.. guess that changes a lot..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>..oops, Breaking Now! looks like ABC LIED!  The &#8216;kid&#8217; was 18.. guess that changes a lot..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mao ma4ding</title>
		<link>http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/09/30/foley-matter-proves-republicans-support-perverts/comment-page-4/#comment-340980</link>
		<dc:creator>mao ma4ding</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:31:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/09/30/foley-matter-proves-republicans-support-perverts/#comment-340980</guid>
		<description>This is really interesting commentary, I really have to stretch my understanding of English- in both its use and misuse - to understand it.  Please forgive language errors, English isn't my native tongue, and this PDA keyboard is poor.
  One thing, As I understand Sexual Harressment Law, in cases where there is a large power differental between employer and employee, willingness isn't germaine.  An employee with a wide power difference subservent to the employer can't rise to the level of unfettered conscent. This is settled case law.  In addition, the import of the whole situation was in relation to a deposition on a sexual harrassment lawsuit.  Often the only way to prove that the S.H. occurred is to display a pattern by the alleged perp.  The lying under oath is what was Clinton's problem, but he had no choice -- if he told the truth, he'd have been convicted.  
  Please note, if you two groups are enjoying yelling at each other, I've always found it more fun when the combatants actually are cognizant of the *facts*.  I haven't joined a party yet, but the aforementioned chide is directed at the Dimondocrats, the Repoblicans seem to *try* to do the right thing, even if they occasionally fall off.
-Mao Ma4 Ding</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is really interesting commentary, I really have to stretch my understanding of English- in both its use and misuse - to understand it.  Please forgive language errors, English isn&#8217;t my native tongue, and this PDA keyboard is poor.<br />
  One thing, As I understand Sexual Harressment Law, in cases where there is a large power differental between employer and employee, willingness isn&#8217;t germaine.  An employee with a wide power difference subservent to the employer can&#8217;t rise to the level of unfettered conscent. This is settled case law.  In addition, the import of the whole situation was in relation to a deposition on a sexual harrassment lawsuit.  Often the only way to prove that the S.H. occurred is to display a pattern by the alleged perp.  The lying under oath is what was Clinton&#8217;s problem, but he had no choice &#8212; if he told the truth, he&#8217;d have been convicted.<br />
  Please note, if you two groups are enjoying yelling at each other, I&#8217;ve always found it more fun when the combatants actually are cognizant of the *facts*.  I haven&#8217;t joined a party yet, but the aforementioned chide is directed at the Dimondocrats, the Repoblicans seem to *try* to do the right thing, even if they occasionally fall off.<br />
-Mao Ma4 Ding</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Merovign</title>
		<link>http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/09/30/foley-matter-proves-republicans-support-perverts/comment-page-4/#comment-339044</link>
		<dc:creator>Merovign</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:48:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/09/30/foley-matter-proves-republicans-support-perverts/#comment-339044</guid>
		<description>Officious Pedant:

We obviously live on two different planets. I can only hope that trend is a historical curiousity and not a tragedy as we try to move forward.

I could drown you in documents and links, but like I said, I've done that before (way too many times) and it was a complete waste. You're impervious, and that will cost everyone, not just me.

Been down this road before, it goes nowhere. Don't really know why I keep trying, maybe because I know people don't learn from their mistakes.

Feel free to misinterpret that any way you like, not that you won't anyway.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Officious Pedant:</p>
<p>We obviously live on two different planets. I can only hope that trend is a historical curiousity and not a tragedy as we try to move forward.</p>
<p>I could drown you in documents and links, but like I said, I&#8217;ve done that before (way too many times) and it was a complete waste. You&#8217;re impervious, and that will cost everyone, not just me.</p>
<p>Been down this road before, it goes nowhere. Don&#8217;t really know why I keep trying, maybe because I know people don&#8217;t learn from their mistakes.</p>
<p>Feel free to misinterpret that any way you like, not that you won&#8217;t anyway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Officious Pedant</title>
		<link>http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/09/30/foley-matter-proves-republicans-support-perverts/comment-page-4/#comment-338697</link>
		<dc:creator>Officious Pedant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:51:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/09/30/foley-matter-proves-republicans-support-perverts/#comment-338697</guid>
		<description>Merovign @ 196 projected:

&lt;i&gt;But Iâ€™ve become so disgusted with the hysteria, bloody-mindedness and power madness of the left, and their willingness to seek new heights in the already feotid swamps of DC dishonesty, that I canâ€™t honestly think of more than a couple of Democratic politicians that Iâ€™d consider voting for.&lt;/i&gt;

Which is a profoundly odd thing to say when the last 6 years have been all about the Unitary Executive and his unfettered authority, in the person of the Commander in Chief, to prosecute wars, detain citizens, listen in on calls, ignore the law, and funnel unprecedented sums to his cronies (competent or not).

&lt;i&gt;Yâ€™all should have read the contract before you sold out to Soros (through the bipartisan McCain-Feingold bill, which shut out a lot of â€œoldâ€ funding and left Sorosâ€™ 501s funding a LOT of your publicity efforts). Maybe if heâ€™s serious about quitting, the actual grassroots can get hold of the Democrat party and actually stage a principled foil to the Repubs, as opposed to just opposing them on principle.&lt;/i&gt;

Yeah, that Soros is such a partisan fiend. Totally unlike Mr. Scaife in every way. Say, how's that Heritage Foundation fundraiser going? Maybe he could have Regnery Publishing (you know, the folks that published the Swift Boat smear) help out. 

See, that's just wilfull blindness, there. You play down your partisanship (which is fine) to seem reasonable (which is the problem), but you wander back to Wilson, Katrina, and Blame Bush First arguments because they are your default position. Go ahead, tell me how Bush didn't cause the hurricane, I can take it. The fact that was &lt;b&gt;never&lt;/b&gt; the issue aside. Rather it was the ineffectual response of the Federal Government after they had declared an emergency &lt;b&gt;days&lt;/b&gt; before Katrina made landfall, but failed to show until 7 days after landfall. Tell me about Saddam's Weapons program, largely fabricated by Curveball (who has now recanted) after the Germans made clear he was unreliable. Let's talk about Chalabi leading Bush and his Administration around by their noses, and being paid by the US government while in the employ of Iranian Intelligence. 

Let's talk about the good news of the Baghdad Police Academy, the rise in opium production in Afghanistan, and Ken Mehlmans assertion that Afghanistan is a failed state. Let's talk about giving Pakistan nuclear technology right before they reach an accord with North Waziristan. Lets talk about lawlessness in the Anbar province (one third of the country), and the steady drumbeat of high level military officers concerned that the armed forces are being broken in Iraq, which could take years to repair. Skyrocketing debt and deficits, government that has grown every year since Bush was elected, and corruption so widespread as to be endemic.

But you want to talk about the "good news" of schools being painted (too bad you take your life in your hands trying to go, and don't even mention girls), establishing a parliametary government (which uses Islam as its guiding principle, and is now jailing journalists for criticism), power coming on line (and just about reaching a percentage what there was before the war)? You took a giant step back from reality, and want to call that reasoned debate? It's called making it up as you go, because the suckers will buy it. And it's going to cost you in November.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Merovign @ 196 projected:</p>
<p><i>But Iâ€™ve become so disgusted with the hysteria, bloody-mindedness and power madness of the left, and their willingness to seek new heights in the already feotid swamps of DC dishonesty, that I canâ€™t honestly think of more than a couple of Democratic politicians that Iâ€™d consider voting for.</i></p>
<p>Which is a profoundly odd thing to say when the last 6 years have been all about the Unitary Executive and his unfettered authority, in the person of the Commander in Chief, to prosecute wars, detain citizens, listen in on calls, ignore the law, and funnel unprecedented sums to his cronies (competent or not).</p>
<p><i>Yâ€™all should have read the contract before you sold out to Soros (through the bipartisan McCain-Feingold bill, which shut out a lot of â€œoldâ€ funding and left Sorosâ€™ 501s funding a LOT of your publicity efforts). Maybe if heâ€™s serious about quitting, the actual grassroots can get hold of the Democrat party and actually stage a principled foil to the Repubs, as opposed to just opposing them on principle.</i></p>
<p>Yeah, that Soros is such a partisan fiend. Totally unlike Mr. Scaife in every way. Say, how&#8217;s that Heritage Foundation fundraiser going? Maybe he could have Regnery Publishing (you know, the folks that published the Swift Boat smear) help out. </p>
<p>See, that&#8217;s just wilfull blindness, there. You play down your partisanship (which is fine) to seem reasonable (which is the problem), but you wander back to Wilson, Katrina, and Blame Bush First arguments because they are your default position. Go ahead, tell me how Bush didn&#8217;t cause the hurricane, I can take it. The fact that was <b>never</b> the issue aside. Rather it was the ineffectual response of the Federal Government after they had declared an emergency <b>days</b> before Katrina made landfall, but failed to show until 7 days after landfall. Tell me about Saddam&#8217;s Weapons program, largely fabricated by Curveball (who has now recanted) after the Germans made clear he was unreliable. Let&#8217;s talk about Chalabi leading Bush and his Administration around by their noses, and being paid by the US government while in the employ of Iranian Intelligence. </p>
<p>Let&#8217;s talk about the good news of the Baghdad Police Academy, the rise in opium production in Afghanistan, and Ken Mehlmans assertion that Afghanistan is a failed state. Let&#8217;s talk about giving Pakistan nuclear technology right before they reach an accord with North Waziristan. Lets talk about lawlessness in the Anbar province (one third of the country), and the steady drumbeat of high level military officers concerned that the armed forces are being broken in Iraq, which could take years to repair. Skyrocketing debt and deficits, government that has grown every year since Bush was elected, and corruption so widespread as to be endemic.</p>
<p>But you want to talk about the &#8220;good news&#8221; of schools being painted (too bad you take your life in your hands trying to go, and don&#8217;t even mention girls), establishing a parliametary government (which uses Islam as its guiding principle, and is now jailing journalists for criticism), power coming on line (and just about reaching a percentage what there was before the war)? You took a giant step back from reality, and want to call that reasoned debate? It&#8217;s called making it up as you go, because the suckers will buy it. And it&#8217;s going to cost you in November.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bw</title>
		<link>http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/09/30/foley-matter-proves-republicans-support-perverts/comment-page-4/#comment-338589</link>
		<dc:creator>bw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Oct 2006 14:57:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/09/30/foley-matter-proves-republicans-support-perverts/#comment-338589</guid>
		<description>I love how you can't face the idea that your party would go to great lengths to protect a pervert for election gain - you need to slap yourself awake my friend - this is not the party you want to be a part of.

ps
it is going to get worse this week</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love how you can&#8217;t face the idea that your party would go to great lengths to protect a pervert for election gain - you need to slap yourself awake my friend - this is not the party you want to be a part of.</p>
<p>ps<br />
it is going to get worse this week</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Merovign</title>
		<link>http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/09/30/foley-matter-proves-republicans-support-perverts/comment-page-4/#comment-338287</link>
		<dc:creator>Merovign</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Oct 2006 08:47:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/09/30/foley-matter-proves-republicans-support-perverts/#comment-338287</guid>
		<description>Officious Pedant:

Irony is just something that happens to other people, isn't it?

I did indeed go through those arguments with Republicans. But instead of invective and smug certitude, I got evidence. Did they convince me of everything? No. But the "other side" has convinced me of nothing.

WMDs?

The Repubs told me that Saddam had them in the past, used them, had the stated intent of getting more, had not cooperated with inspectors, had lied repeatedly, and presented intelligence reports from our allies about his efforts - which they still stand by.

Democrats claimed that a hearsay report by a British bureaucrat about his opinions of what the intentions of the Americans might be was more authoritative than British, French and Italian intelligence reports. They claimed that the US "supplied Saddam with his arsenal" and some of the claimants even said we were his largest supplier (11th largest, actually). After the chain of events was laid out, it's harder to imagine a less credible witness against the Administration than Joe Wilson, and it keeps getting worse every time he opens his mouth.

I had similar experiences with just about every issue I examined, though admittedly by the time Katrina hit I was expecting the left to simply Blame Bush First, ignore any successes, play race and poverty cards, not do a hell of a lot to help, and basically carry on like hungry, angry babies.

Not that Republicans are perfect, far from it. Like I said, they're not worth much. But at least they're worth something.

I'm not comfortable on the right, especially since the Bush administration shares a major trait with the Democratic party - spending like it was going out of style (not even counting the war effort). Neither major party has a very strong grasp of economics, though at least on taxation, the last forty years have shown that the Repubs are about a hundred times better than the democrats.

But I've become so disgusted with the hysteria, bloody-mindedness and power madness of the left, and their willingness to seek new heights in the already feotid swamps of DC dishonesty, that I can't honestly think of more than a couple of Democratic politicians that I'd consider voting for.

Y'all should have read the contract before you sold out to Soros (through the bipartisan McCain-Feingold bill, which shut out a lot of "old" funding and left Soros' 501s funding a LOT of your publicity efforts). Maybe if he's serious about quitting, the actual grassroots can get hold of the Democrat party and actually stage a principled foil to the Repubs, as opposed to just opposing them on principle.

Best of luck with the election, especially now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Officious Pedant:</p>
<p>Irony is just something that happens to other people, isn&#8217;t it?</p>
<p>I did indeed go through those arguments with Republicans. But instead of invective and smug certitude, I got evidence. Did they convince me of everything? No. But the &#8220;other side&#8221; has convinced me of nothing.</p>
<p>WMDs?</p>
<p>The Repubs told me that Saddam had them in the past, used them, had the stated intent of getting more, had not cooperated with inspectors, had lied repeatedly, and presented intelligence reports from our allies about his efforts - which they still stand by.</p>
<p>Democrats claimed that a hearsay report by a British bureaucrat about his opinions of what the intentions of the Americans might be was more authoritative than British, French and Italian intelligence reports. They claimed that the US &#8220;supplied Saddam with his arsenal&#8221; and some of the claimants even said we were his largest supplier (11th largest, actually). After the chain of events was laid out, it&#8217;s harder to imagine a less credible witness against the Administration than Joe Wilson, and it keeps getting worse every time he opens his mouth.</p>
<p>I had similar experiences with just about every issue I examined, though admittedly by the time Katrina hit I was expecting the left to simply Blame Bush First, ignore any successes, play race and poverty cards, not do a hell of a lot to help, and basically carry on like hungry, angry babies.</p>
<p>Not that Republicans are perfect, far from it. Like I said, they&#8217;re not worth much. But at least they&#8217;re worth something.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not comfortable on the right, especially since the Bush administration shares a major trait with the Democratic party - spending like it was going out of style (not even counting the war effort). Neither major party has a very strong grasp of economics, though at least on taxation, the last forty years have shown that the Repubs are about a hundred times better than the democrats.</p>
<p>But I&#8217;ve become so disgusted with the hysteria, bloody-mindedness and power madness of the left, and their willingness to seek new heights in the already feotid swamps of DC dishonesty, that I can&#8217;t honestly think of more than a couple of Democratic politicians that I&#8217;d consider voting for.</p>
<p>Y&#8217;all should have read the contract before you sold out to Soros (through the bipartisan McCain-Feingold bill, which shut out a lot of &#8220;old&#8221; funding and left Soros&#8217; 501s funding a LOT of your publicity efforts). Maybe if he&#8217;s serious about quitting, the actual grassroots can get hold of the Democrat party and actually stage a principled foil to the Repubs, as opposed to just opposing them on principle.</p>
<p>Best of luck with the election, especially now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: comsympinko</title>
		<link>http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/09/30/foley-matter-proves-republicans-support-perverts/comment-page-4/#comment-338201</link>
		<dc:creator>comsympinko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Oct 2006 06:14:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/09/30/foley-matter-proves-republicans-support-perverts/#comment-338201</guid>
		<description>Rightwing thought is intellectual cancer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rightwing thought is intellectual cancer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Officious Pedant</title>
		<link>http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/09/30/foley-matter-proves-republicans-support-perverts/comment-page-4/#comment-338167</link>
		<dc:creator>Officious Pedant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Oct 2006 05:16:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/09/30/foley-matter-proves-republicans-support-perverts/#comment-338167</guid>
		<description>Couple of quick notes on this Foley issue.

First, the man, however creepy, cannot be classified as a pedophile due to age of consent laws in DC. They boy(s), while in their minority, could legally give consent.

Second, the legal violation is of a Federal statute that forbids the solicitation of sexual acts via the Internet. Using such language as this:

http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/109/h/h4472.pdf

(7) EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF â€˜â€˜SPECIFIED OFFENSE
AGAINST A MINORâ€™â€™ TO INCLUDE ALL OFFENSES BY CHILD PREDATORS.â€”
The term â€˜â€˜specified offense against a minorâ€™â€™ means
an offense against a minor that involves any of the following:
(A) An offense (unless committed by a parent or
guardian) involving kidnapping.
(B) An offense (unless committed by a parent or
guardian) involving false imprisonment.
(C) Solicitation to engage in sexual conduct.
(D) Use in a sexual performance.
(E) Solicitation to practice prostitution.
(F) Video voyeurism as described in section 1801 of
title 18, United States Code.
(G) Possession, production, or distribution of child
pornography.
&lt;b&gt;(H) Criminal sexual conduct involving a minor, or the
use of the Internet to facilitate or attempt such conduct.&lt;/b&gt; &lt;i&gt;(Say, using email, or an IM.)&lt;/i&gt;
(I) Any conduct that by its nature is a sex offense
against a minor.

As to a cover-up, I'm not sure, but there are a couple of pointers:

From the AP story: &lt;b&gt;The page worked for Rep. Rodney Alexander (news, bio, voting record), R-La., who said Friday that when he learned of the e-mail exchanges 10 to 11 months ago, he called the teen's parents. Alexander told the Ruston Daily Leader, "We also notified the House leadership that there might be a potential problem," a reference to the House's Republican leaders.&lt;/b&gt;

Why would the leadership seek to protect him? Well, the AP story touched on that, too: &lt;b&gt;Foley was a member of the Republican leadership, serving as a deputy whip. He also was a member of the House Ways and Means Committee.&lt;/b&gt;

And Senator Boehner seemed to have some notion, at least until he forgot he did. From the WaPo: The resignation rocked the Capitol, and especially Foley's GOP colleagues, as lawmakers were rushing to adjourn for at least six weeks. &lt;b&gt;House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of inappropriate "contact" between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he then told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). Boehner later contacted The Post and said he could not remember whether he talked to Hastert.&lt;/b&gt;

So, it seems that the leadership failed to act on what they knew, possibly because the individual who was doing it was a member of the leadership. Seems a bit less complicated now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Couple of quick notes on this Foley issue.</p>
<p>First, the man, however creepy, cannot be classified as a pedophile due to age of consent laws in DC. They boy(s), while in their minority, could legally give consent.</p>
<p>Second, the legal violation is of a Federal statute that forbids the solicitation of sexual acts via the Internet. Using such language as this:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/109/h/h4472.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/109/h/h4472.pdf</a></p>
<p>(7) EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF â€˜â€˜SPECIFIED OFFENSE<br />
AGAINST A MINORâ€™â€™ TO INCLUDE ALL OFFENSES BY CHILD PREDATORS.â€”<br />
The term â€˜â€˜specified offense against a minorâ€™â€™ means<br />
an offense against a minor that involves any of the following:<br />
(A) An offense (unless committed by a parent or<br />
guardian) involving kidnapping.<br />
(B) An offense (unless committed by a parent or<br />
guardian) involving false imprisonment.<br />
(C) Solicitation to engage in sexual conduct.<br />
(D) Use in a sexual performance.<br />
(E) Solicitation to practice prostitution.<br />
(F) Video voyeurism as described in section 1801 of<br />
title 18, United States Code.<br />
(G) Possession, production, or distribution of child<br />
pornography.<br />
<b>(H) Criminal sexual conduct involving a minor, or the<br />
use of the Internet to facilitate or attempt such conduct.</b> <i>(Say, using email, or an IM.)</i><br />
(I) Any conduct that by its nature is a sex offense<br />
against a minor.</p>
<p>As to a cover-up, I&#8217;m not sure, but there are a couple of pointers:</p>
<p>From the AP story: <b>The page worked for Rep. Rodney Alexander (news, bio, voting record), R-La., who said Friday that when he learned of the e-mail exchanges 10 to 11 months ago, he called the teen&#8217;s parents. Alexander told the Ruston Daily Leader, &#8220;We also notified the House leadership that there might be a potential problem,&#8221; a reference to the House&#8217;s Republican leaders.</b></p>
<p>Why would the leadership seek to protect him? Well, the AP story touched on that, too: <b>Foley was a member of the Republican leadership, serving as a deputy whip. He also was a member of the House Ways and Means Committee.</b></p>
<p>And Senator Boehner seemed to have some notion, at least until he forgot he did. From the WaPo: The resignation rocked the Capitol, and especially Foley&#8217;s GOP colleagues, as lawmakers were rushing to adjourn for at least six weeks. <b>House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of inappropriate &#8220;contact&#8221; between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he then told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). Boehner later contacted The Post and said he could not remember whether he talked to Hastert.</b></p>
<p>So, it seems that the leadership failed to act on what they knew, possibly because the individual who was doing it was a member of the leadership. Seems a bit less complicated now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Officious Pedant</title>
		<link>http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/09/30/foley-matter-proves-republicans-support-perverts/comment-page-4/#comment-338138</link>
		<dc:creator>Officious Pedant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Oct 2006 04:41:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/09/30/foley-matter-proves-republicans-support-perverts/#comment-338138</guid>
		<description>From Merovign, @ 189:

&lt;i&gt;Iâ€™ve been in some pretty brutal arguments with Republicans. But usually, when I present my evidence, at the very least I donâ€™t get a response ignoring me and making the original allegation again. That is exactly the response I get from the left, in all but a very few cases.&lt;/i&gt;

Then you haven't argued faulty intelligence, WMD and their supposed transshipment to Syria, the status of Iraq or the economy, the failure that was Katrina, or the status of our military. All of which are rife with facts indicating the failure of the policy, but which don't seem to dent the certitude of the Faith Based Argument community.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From Merovign, @ 189:</p>
<p><i>Iâ€™ve been in some pretty brutal arguments with Republicans. But usually, when I present my evidence, at the very least I donâ€™t get a response ignoring me and making the original allegation again. That is exactly the response I get from the left, in all but a very few cases.</i></p>
<p>Then you haven&#8217;t argued faulty intelligence, WMD and their supposed transshipment to Syria, the status of Iraq or the economy, the failure that was Katrina, or the status of our military. All of which are rife with facts indicating the failure of the policy, but which don&#8217;t seem to dent the certitude of the Faith Based Argument community.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
