does a child predator and his enablers deserve to be protected by the President of the United States?
2006-10-17 15:42:35 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The end does not justify the means. Pedophile is still a crime and there is no valid defense for its commission.
2006-10-17 15:45:40 · answer #1 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
i imagine Mark Foley might want to have an awesome criminal professional. what number excuses has he arise with so a concepts? The incident is reprehensible, notwithstanding, the interest is being diverted from the incidents he perpetrated himself. It can't be a "Catholic" element. it is one man or woman, in spite of the actual incontrovertible truth that there have been many, to take income of youthful children. there are many extra perps accessible than in basic terms the non secular sorts. Society might want to take care of each and every human being as they commit the crime. historic previous excluded. The media might want to take care of the present crime and then seem at why it handed off. It now perpetuates Foley with a reason to be the sufferer.
2016-12-04 22:52:34 · answer #2 · answered by marquard 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neddie...
A few genuine questions (which will address your "pseudo-question"):
Question #1. Do you realize that the only "cover-up" in the Foley case was by the Democratic party operatives who sat on a leaked transcript of his sexually explicit IM's to an 18 year-old ex-page for months before trying to turn it into a pitiful October surprise on the last day that Congress was in session before the election? By the way, they have since refused to reveal the source of the transcript to the FBI during their investigation into the matter...why?
P.S. The Republican House leadership demanded and received Foley's resignation on the same day that they received the sexually explicit IM's. Note: the earlier E-mails simply stated "what do you want for your birthday?" and "send me a picture". They were NOT sexually explicit. Still...Foley was counseled at that time and agreed to stop.
Question #2. Tell us and all of your followers exactly how you feel about a married President of the United States receiving oral sex from a White House intern in the oval office and then repeatedly lying about it, including while under oath? I believe that, at the time, the spin from your side was that “this is only about sex between consenting adults” and we should stay out of Clinton’s private life. Note: the sexually explicit IM’s were sent to an 18 year old (adult) ex-page in a consensual instant message conversation.
Question #3. While you’re at it, how did you feel about recently deceased Democratic Congressman Gerry Studds actually having had anal sex with a 17 year-old male page, turning his back on the House floor as his CENSURE was read and then being reelected 6 times with the endorsement of the Democratic Party?
The Washington Post praised him as a “gay pioneer in Congress”…absurd!
How can your blind hatred of GWB allow you to pontificate with an entirely made up slur about Bush "covering up" the Foley situation? And how can your side of the political spectrum so unashamedly express outrage one day and praise the next for equally repugnant behavior?
Don't you have enough self-respect to at least try to base your "questions" on some facts and then be consistent in your moral outrage???
2006-10-18 11:09:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
No.
If every person molested as a child by a priest, a sister, a father, a preacher, a teacher, a cop etc. etc. was molesting minors into his 50's, and his cohorts knew about it (for 6 years at least), they should all be in prison.
2006-10-19 16:39:51 · answer #4 · answered by Gaspode 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The priest is acknowledging being naked with him, but not having sex. Either way it's bad. But can't you just wait for the info to come out, about who knew what and when. that sounds like a more reasonable thing to do, considering many Dems were oh so ready to blame the Bush administration for the nuke threat at football stadiums. Many Dems had already called it a conspiracy, the infamous October surprise, and now the guy who did it turned himself in and is co-operating with authorities. Can we agree on that?
2006-10-19 11:12:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
He is still a criminal. John Wayne Gacy was abused but do you think that justified the fact he killed 30+ people?
2006-10-17 16:42:00 · answer #6 · answered by Steven 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Was Senator Kennedy justified in killing his little girlfriend when he drove her into the river? Was Bill Clinton Justified in having sex with an intern in the Oval Office?
2006-10-17 15:59:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I don't believe the Republicans are protecting him at all. He will get more protection from the democrats as one of theirs who did the same thing just told folks it was none of their damn business. The republicans want him gone. If it results in charges than so be it. I know self responsibility is a foreign concept to a liberal, but we republicans believe in it.
2006-10-17 15:48:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Okay, let me say it again....
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY didn't "cover up", he was forced out of office when things became clear. We can't have a witch hunt at every piece of gossip.
When Studds had SEX with a page....the democrats rallied around him and made him their hero.
Between Studds, Frank and that guy that Clinton pardoned for having sex with an underage campaign worker....we KNOW what is typical of the democrat party. Oh, let us not forget about bill, himself. Ick. They don't cover up...they just don't give a d#$%.
2006-10-17 15:46:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Republicans never do anything wrong, didnt you know that? They blame it all on Clinton or Democrats in general.
2006-10-17 15:50:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋