Ah. But it really wasn't about outing gay Republicans...Follow

Well, I guess we know the answer to: "Are you retarded", now. Thanks!

Ok. But the "boundary" we're talking about is the "legal age of consent". We're talking about the difference between an 18 year old and a 16 year old. My problem with your argument is that you somehow equate that to pulling down underroos and fondling their "hairless package". Unless you're trying to argue that 16 year olds are pre-adolescent, then your statement serves no logical purpose and exists only to toss a bit of cheap rhetoric into the issue.

This is like the 5th time I've made this exact same argument, and you seem to be blissfully unaware of it even now. Let's stop calling this something it isn't. He is *not* a pedophile. He is *not* attracted to pre-adolescent children. He is *not* a child molester. He is at worse guilty of violating age of consent laws, and so far there's no evidence he did that either.

Can we please stop the rhetoric? Sheesh!



Slippery slope, right? You're assuming that because he's attracted to young male teens that even though we have no evidence that he's done anything illegal, we should assume that he has? And perhaps assume he's done worse (your "kid toucher" phrase, which again implies child molestation).

As to him riding the edge of the law, isn't that why we have laws? Somewhat by definition as long as someone stays on the legal side of that legal boundary, they are not in violation of the law. Yeah. Should be obvious, but it seems like you might not understand that. What it shows is that he is making a conscious decision to abide by the rules of the land. We can't go around arresting people because we think they might like to do something illegal, but have chosen not to *only* becuase it's not legal.

I might enjoy smoking pot every once in awhile. I don't smoke pot because it's illegal. If it were legal, I would likely smoke it at a party occasionally. Should I be vilified for making that statement? I don't think so. Should I be considered a "criminal" because there are some things I might like to do but *dont* because they're illegal? Again. I don't think so. And I think if you stop to think about it, you don't think so either.



Hehe. May I make an observation here?

Ever notice that the absolute only context in which a 16 year old male will *ever* be referred to as a "little boy" is when someone like you is attempting to demonize someone like Foley?

It would be funny if this kind of thing wasn't so predictable...

One huge flaw though:

You can't charge someone with a crime for what he was thinking. This ties back to the whole "thought police" thing. Foley can think about having sex with a 16 year old all he wants. He can even befriend that 16 year old with the intent of *later* having sex with him (like when he turns 18 later). But unless he actually engages in a sexual act with that 16 year old (or arranges to meet him with the intent of having sex with him at that age), he hasn't actually committed any crime.

Foley didn't do any of that. We're left with guessing his intentions towards these teens he befriended. We can assume that he did befriend them with the intent of getting sexually involved with them when they turned 18, but that's no more illegal then planning your big alchohol drinking bash for when you turn 21.

Is it "creepy"? Sure. Is it illegal? Absolutely not.



It is a big deal when you keep implying that the "child" involved was pre-adolescent. That's really the big issue I was trying to address with you. The rest is pretty much a matter of personal opinion. The constant attempts to paint his "victims" as "little boys" is pure rhetoric on your part.



Repeatedly warned about what? That he was gay? And that as a gay male, he's attracted to... men? Not really getting your argument here. What exact action do you think Hastert should have taken on this matter? Ousted the guy for *not* having sex with anyone underaged? Ousted him because maybe he was thinking about having sex with teens, but not when it's actually illegal for him to have sex with them, but later when they turn 18?

I'm serious here. What concrete evidence did you have here? The most you can do is privately go up to the guy and tell him to not provide the appearance that he *might* be doing something wrong. Because at the end of the day, that's all this is. His behavior was indicative of someone who *might* do something inappropriate. You can't exactly expell someone from Congress for that...



No. My whole arguement hinges on the fact that he didn't actually commit any crime. Your whole argument seems to hinge on taking semi-related bits of information about Foley, extrapolating reasons for them, and then guessing that he *might* have been thinking naughty thoughts about underaged males, but didn't actually act on them.

Hmmm... Which one of us is stretching a bit?...

Sorry, had to.

Could you imagine gbaji in a position of political power?

/shiver






He would fit right in.

if a teacherwas found to be seing up 16 yr olds, quit trying to misrepresent thefacts. the boy ws 16 and aminor.

If you ever find yourself making an argument that something is acceptable sexual behavior and find Barkingturtle arguing against you, just give it up man because you have already lost.