The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Prudence

advocating legislation prohibiting that marriage because such relationships are unnatural and leading to the destruction of society.

Foley apparently voted against the gay marriage ban and was generally considered one of the more pro-gay members of congress.

Just a month ago, writers at the Daily Kos were defending Foley against charges that he was too liberal on the issue.

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Foley apparently voted against the gay marriage ban and was generally considered one of the more pro-gay members of congress.

Most people don't attention to individual votes - he's associated with the DOMA party and guilty by association, so to speak.

Although I think that taking a noticeable stand on an issue opens one up further. Maybe it's because he's not "our" congressman, but up here the mayor of Spokane got way more vile than Foley's getting because the mayor had such a public anti-gay stance.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Prudence

Most people don't attention to individual votes - he's associated with the DOMA party and guilty by association, so to speak.

There is not "DOMA party." It was introduced with sponsorship from both Republicans and Democrats, passed with broad bipartisan support in both houses of congress (85-14 in the Senate and 342-64 in the House), and was then signed by a Democrat president.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

signed by a Democrat president.

Not one of his shining moments. I wrote Clinton as this was taking shape, and his letter back was cynical fence sitting; basically, I hate discrimination, but I will sign the bill. I had written him several years earlier to tell him to stop his cynical pandering (Christian benediction at the 1992 Democratic convention), but I guess the first letter didn't take.

When I wrote Dianne Feinstein about her support for the flag protection amendment, she wrote back forthrightly that we would have to agree to disagree. She's still obviously full of S***, but it was a better letter.

[innerSpaceman]

Also, there's the delicious irony of his co-chairmanship of the exploited childrens' caucus. It's the salaciousness of it that is fueling the story, and I think if he were on the fishing license caucus sending messages to girls about their bra-cup size, this would be accepted as the usual Congressman philandering.


But, hey, I'm all for this blowing up in the Republican Party's collective face just before Election Day, and hopefully being the 88th monkey of criminal scandal this season that will tip the voting scales against them.

To me, yes, it's simply a political issue ... and I really don't have much concern for those 16 and 17 year-old boys who - oh, the horrors - had to deal with emails about their dick size. While it was absolutely wrong and innappropriate, I don't think any children were actually harmed.

I'm hoping Foley's antics bring a zillion times more harm to his party than they ever did to ex-pageboys.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

While it was absolutely wrong and innappropriate, I don't think any children were actually harmed.

If no children were harmed, why was it wrong and inappropriate?

[Alex]

Does everything inappropriate cause harm?

To clarify my last post after a bit more poking around. Foley did vote for the Defense of Marriage Act (but so did a lot of people who were supposedly "pro-gay") but has voted against the various constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Does everything inappropriate cause harm?

Of course not. It was more a sort of philosophical question for ISM. Let's focus more on wrong than inappropriate. I realize ISM wants harm done to the republican party, and I'm OK with that (I'm all for harm done to the dem party myself). I am wondering, though, if no harm was done, does ISM think a crime was committed worthy of prosecution?

ISM has long been someone who disagrees with victimless crime, as do a lot of people. So if he thinks no one was harmed, was a crime really committed? Let's say the guy was an independent rather than a republican....should he be prosecuted for anything?

Please understand I do think there was a crime committed. I regard the man as a predator.

I would actually be more offended if it were a female page rather than a male page, to refer to something earlier in the thread. Not exactly sure how to express why. Probably some chauvinistic view of the male being more able to protect himself, but that's not always the case necessarily.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I would actually be more offended if it were a female page rather than a male page ... Not exactly sure how to express why.

Yep, that's why I feel there's no harm in this case. Totally mysogenistic of me ... but I think most teen boys can handle the emotional trauma of being asked to measure their dick size.

And I don't see anything wrong (or rationally criminal) in dirty internet talk with teenagers of either gender. But where to you draw the age line? 15? 11? 9? At some point, and I don't know where, it becomes much more wrong to me. So, I guess the arbitrary "adult" line of 18 makes some sense.

Besides, the criminal element is, I believe, trying to set up meetings for sexual purposes ... which I feel is wrong with anyone lacking full maturity and judgment skills. That would make the age limit 25, by the way. So I actually agree with the criminal statue that outlaws luring teens via the internet to sexual rendez vous in the real world. Of course, I'd rather it only be a crime if the meeting takes place, but I understand it's the luring itself that is criminal. (However, can luring take place if no one is actually lured? Is that like a tree falling in the woods?)


I haven't read the emails myself ... so I can't form a coherent opinion on how much luring there was vs. how much gayspeak.

* * * * *

Oh, and to counter something posted earlier ... at least according to various reports I've heard, incoming pages were warned to stay away from Foley because he got a little too friendly, not because he was simply homosexual. I don't find it credible that pages are warned about every gay member of the House.

[Prudence]

I should have said the constitutional amendment and not DOMA. (I think I was thinking of the state version.) Or am I totally out of touch and the dems starting supporting the amendment while I wasn't looking?