I'm basing this question on other questions I saw on here through out the day.
People have stated here that since the age of consent is 16 then what is the problem.
The problem with me is this:
He's a government official.
I would not want a 50 year old hitting on my 16 year old sister.
All government officials, no matter what party should be held at a higher level of upholding values and ethics.
Now, explain to me how his actions were justifiable?
2006-10-09 14:52:43 · 11 answers · asked by Enterrador 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
What happened to the rights of the people to expect their elected officials to be held to a higher set of morals than the status Quo. These days politicians have done an about face regarding the way they do business, it seems that everyone is getting paid off, rewarded for crimes against its citizens, and allowed to do just about anything they can get away with, right in front of us, they don't even hide their evil ways, sometimes they literately slap us in the face with their greed , fraud, and illicit activities.It's like their saying try and stop us,
2006-10-09 15:16:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No boss should ever hit on an employee - which is basically what this is. However, there was nothing illegal about what he did.
My problem is that the Democrats are using the Foley case to make it appear that all Republicans are hypocrites. There are losers on both sides of the political aisle. Finding one corrupt person does not make the entire organization bad.
My question is: Where was the moral outrage from the Democrats and the media when Clinton actually had sexual relations with an employee? Monica could have been his daughter. All Foley did was exchange e-mails and IMs.
Ethically, I think it's wrong. Personally, I think it's gross for any 50-year-old to hit on a teenager. Legally, he did nothing wrong, and the media is showing their left-wing bias.
.
2006-10-09 14:54:06 · answer #2 · answered by FozzieBear 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The actions by MR Foley were unethical and predatory , because of the position of power that he had and in no way justifiable. He can proceed to do his private business with a consenting adult but not with minors ,whet er male or female.
2006-10-09 14:58:41 · answer #3 · answered by danshalom 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
His actions were not justifiable, not legal in most states including Florida! Further, it seems he has been acting in this manner with the knowledge of the Republican hierarchy since 2000!
That makes them an accessory before the fact in this last action!
How do you feel about that?
2006-10-09 14:59:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anarchy99 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
yeah but technically legal. The reason is, when you do an argument, you are supposed to lose all emotion to make it the best, i don't like it either, or do i think it is justifiable, but people these days need to learn the laws before they go blabbering.
Texas has a law in which a man can kill his cheating wife and her counterpart if he catches them in bed and he kills them right there. It is all legal. Not necessarily right, but a law
2006-10-09 14:57:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
maximum religions have self belief that suicide is a substantial sin or something comparable. the explanation human beings i understand have stopped attempting to commit suicide is using the fact of their companion and childrens. i in my view could extremely die for somebody else than to commit suicide. i think like suicide is a waste of a existence. in spite of if the organs are donated, that individual might have long gone and helped extra human beings by using in simple terms residing.
2016-11-27 03:40:38 · answer #6 · answered by rousselle 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
His actions aren't justifiable, but let's see if they were "illegal". I haven't heard that he had sex with any of the pages, or lured any of them through emails and IMs, so he could have sex with them. What he did is disgusting and unethical. And there's no justification for that.
2006-10-09 15:00:56 · answer #7 · answered by FL LMT 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I believe that the only reason the young man allowed it to go on for so long was to secure his endorsement to enter college or for future employment. But I think it was sexual harassment, plain and simple.
2006-10-09 14:56:01 · answer #8 · answered by Fun and Games 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It is wrong for an adult, especially one in a position of power to have sexual relations or explicit communication with underage people.
2006-10-09 15:01:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
his actions should not be held at any lighter logic than to be denutted. then we can hear him sing.
2006-10-09 15:10:49 · answer #10 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋