eleny
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:14 PM
Original message |
Pat Buchanan on MSNBC: We're not talking about a heinous crime |
|
He was debating the Foley issue with Mike Papantonio. Buchanan went on the say that the page was 16, so he was at the age of consent. Thus, no crime was committed.
Today, watching these right wing nut jobs is beyond creepy. First FoxNews' "innocuous" mantra and now this.
|
npincus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:15 PM
Response to Original message |
1. his sister, Bay, would disagree |
|
Edited on Wed Oct-04-06 01:16 PM by npincus
she was frothing at the mouth yesterday on CNN.
|
eleny
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
But she started the meme that Foley did it because he's a gay man. So I cheered and jeered her.
|
elehhhhna
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
52. GET OUT! Bay is gay! Why would she confuse gay w/ pedo? |
gully
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:16 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Interesting. Gay marriage is a "heinous" crime, but preying on |
helderheid
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
9. LOL!! That deserves its own thread! |
Mist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
10. I love to see them stepping in their own sh*t........nt |
Iris
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
14. Good point. And while I might agree what Foley has done may not be |
|
a "heinous crime" it is heinous behavior.
|
Cha
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
23. Gay rights are heinous but |
|
sending solitious, rapacious emails to 16 year old boys from a 50-something congressman is not?
pat buchanan has no credibility.
|
RaleighNCDUer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
42. Well, it would have been a crime had he asked the kid |
|
to marry him. but he didn't, so it's cool.
Get it?
|
elehhhhna
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #42 |
Carni
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #42 |
59. Oh God forbid then the kid could've soaked him for alimony later |
|
You know a really WEIRD thought just occurred to me a few minutes ago...and take Foley out of this because I don't want to equate gay with preying on children (which I believe Foley DID prey on a *child* 16 is not an adult)
In light of Gannon and the rumors about snotty Scotty, Rove, Bush himself and on and on...is it POSSIBLE that the gay marriage outrage/opposition coming from our right winged politicians is partially due to the fact that they want to protect their OWN wallets and they don't want to be nailed down with a legal partner?
I realize that sounds absurb but let's face it...these log cabin types appear to be more interested in random fooling around with whoever than they are with having a committed relationship with someone -- is this all just a smoke screen so they can preserve their finances and maintain a lifestyle of doing whatever with random people who have no claims on their money?
OK that was *out there* (even for me) but the thought flashed through my mind and why the hell do there appear to be all these in the closet types in the bush admin?
Something has always struck me about this-- can't put my finger on it though.
|
gully
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #59 |
64. Re: Gay marriage/I think at the very least Bushco. doth protest too much? |
|
Just like Foley did as he crusaded against internet pedo's given his tendency to engage himself.
|
BattyDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
51. LOL! That's an excellent point! |
MADem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:16 PM
Response to Original message |
3. FOLEY's chief of staff just resigned! |
|
Gotta wonder if HE is gonna fall on his sword?
And who's running that vacant office? Party time....! Surf the net, eat pizza, work on the old resume!!!!!
|
Stand and Fight
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
8. FORMER Chief of Staff... n/t |
MADem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
16. NOPE, I am wrong==it was REYNOLD's chief of staff who just quit!!!!!! |
|
The newsreader mis-announced it...
That's even more interesting. I think Reynold's COS was telling the truth.
|
eleny
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
29. We thought we smelled toast - Now we know we did! |
MADem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #29 |
48. Yep...the hits just keep on coming!! |
|
I wonder how long it will be before, or IF, that COS goes on TV and tells his side? I'm wondering if he jumped, or if he was pushed. He's telling a completely different story than Reynolds, and Reynolds was claiming that he went off on his own volition to "counsel" Foley.
Now, he used to work for Foley, but that smells like horseshit to me. If that guy went and got Foley's resignation, he did it because his current boss told him to, not because he was freelancing.
|
TahitiNut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
67. Reynold's (RCCC) Chief of Staff -AND - former Foley Staff Member |
magellan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:16 PM
Response to Original message |
4. I'd tell Buchanan to go choke himself |
|
...but considering the kinky shit these Repugs are into, he probably already does. Regularly.
|
elehhhhna
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
54. leave Pat alne! He lost an uncle at Auchwitz. |
|
Fell out of a guard tower.
|
SlavesandBulldozers
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #54 |
|
that one's going in the little book of republican insults, if you don't mind.
|
Rocknrule
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #54 |
68. That's how most Republicans lost relatives in WWII |
Stand and Fight
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:17 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Pat is wrong on this one... |
|
It depends on the state in which the crime(s) was/were committed. If he went to San Diego and had sex with this kid or the kid was in California when they engaged in cyber sex, then he is guilty of solicitation of a minor and satuatory rape. The age of consent in California is 18 by the way...
|
eleny
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
11. And there are other pages involved, too |
|
So it widens the geographic area possibilities.
|
Horse with no Name
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
58. but it was on the internet |
|
thus making it a federal crime. Age of consent doesn't apply. On the internet, he is considered a kid--no matter how hard they try to spin it. That is why nobody is mentioning that little morsel.
|
phantom power
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:17 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Did you see how Fox displayed Foley as "(D-FL)?" |
|
I think this did the GOP some damage, but I guarantee their hard-core base will buy into whatever spin they come up with, no matter how transparent. They'll have to, because they'll do anything to have their cult taken from them.
|
eleny
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
19. Anything to confuse the nose pickers among their core viewers |
Tempest
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:18 PM
Response to Original message |
12. The page was NOT at the age of consent |
|
Not according to the Internet bill Foley himself sponsored and Bush signed into law.
According to the bill, the age of consent is eighteen.
|
Marnieworld
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:19 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Wed Oct-04-06 01:20 PM by Marnieworld
Maybe he doesn't know all of the details. First age of consent isn't federal does he know more details about the # of possible pages involved and their locations than the rest of us do? They are still minors at 16. There is evidence he gave them alcohol which is a crime. He may have had physical contact with a minor below the age of consent which is a crime. Just soliciting the internet sexual activity is a crime and we know for a fact that he did do that.
Pat should really brush up on some law before he starts defending sexual contact with minors. All you have to do is see that press conference and know that Foley's lawyer is preparing a jury pool for a criminal defense. Apparently he and Foley both are acting as if a crime occurred and they sure would know.
|
eleny
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
22. That's why it's right to treat smoke like fire where kids are involved |
|
I can't recall the journalist who said that the other day but it's stuck in my mind as one of the most sensible assertions.
|
Marnieworld
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
25. I just said the same thing |
|
I read some unsourced quote from a Republican and they said they didn't have a smoking gun when they got the first emails. I said, yah but you had smoke. Aren't repsonsible people supposed to investigate smoke?
|
Armstead
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:19 PM
Response to Original message |
15. Oh Pat -- At least you used to be consistent |
|
However bad some of his ideas are, at least Buchanan has been consistent in adhering to a basic set odf principles.
But for mr. Culture War to now take such a transparently phony position that is against everything he claims to stand for....Oh Pat you done sold yourself down the river.
|
bigbrother05
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:19 PM
Response to Original message |
MADem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
20. Inappropriate senior - subordinate relationship. NT |
TorchTheWitch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
73. Really... all this yammering about age of consent |
|
Age of consent is a red herring... there was NO CONSENT! They were sexually harrassed, and like typical sexually harrassed individuals they either tried to ignore it, brush if off or went along with it. We KNOW they did not consent because they were coerced due to their being lowly little subordinates. We KNOW they did not consent because they saved the proof and are handing it over at the expense of their own political careers... they won't get so much as an envelope stuffing job in the Repuke party for handing in that proof.
I'm amazed that some people can't see the glaring difference between dating your boss and being sexually harrassed by him/her. Just boggles the mind.
|
Bluebear
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:19 PM
Response to Original message |
18. Pat, in light of the Amish incident, why do straight men molest girls??? |
|
Yesterday he was all over the place stating the "fact" that gay men are often pedophiles. Not a word about the freak who killed those children because he was "dreaming of molesting little girls again".
|
AlCzervik
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:21 PM
Response to Original message |
21. they knew, the gop has known about Foley's behavior, the NBC |
|
reporter said that Fordham was Foley's minder for a long time.
|
eleny
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #21 |
26. Fordham? The school or is that a person |
|
I missed this in any case.
|
AlCzervik
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #26 |
28. sorry, the guy that quit, he's been foley's minder for 10 years. |
eleny
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #28 |
31. Someone in the thread said it was Reynolds' guy |
|
I need to do some sorting out. Thanks!
|
AlCzervik
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #31 |
33. he worked for Foley first as far as i know. |
|
Edited on Wed Oct-04-06 01:36 PM by chimpsrsmarter
|
eleny
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #33 |
36. Yipes! A double whammy |
Garbo 2004
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:23 PM
Response to Original message |
24. Fed law Foley co-sponsored makes internet solicitation of kids |
|
Edited on Wed Oct-04-06 01:25 PM by Garbo 2004
a crime. Regardless of local jurisdiction age of consent for physical contact. The explicit IM's to former pages likely fall under this Fed law.
|
Maeve
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:24 PM
Response to Original message |
27. Yeah and Monica was 22----what did he say back then? Right...wingnut |
redqueen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
45. These people are laughable... |
|
how anyone takes them seriously is beyond me.
|
Imagevision
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:26 PM
Response to Original message |
30. Not a heinous crime? - tell that to the parents bubba... |
no_hypocrisy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:29 PM
Response to Original message |
32. How about a 16 year old and a priest? |
|
C'mon it's about the power exerted by the adult upon the will of the minor as much as it is about sex. The manipulation if not outright domination weighs heavily in these types of situation.
|
eleny
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #32 |
35. Today, they're throwing anything and everything up on the wall |
|
On Fox they were calling the initial emails "innocuous". Now Pat B. is asserting that there wasn't even a crime. This is desperation. Good fodder for Dems on the campaign trail. The Republicans only care about power. Children aren't even important to them. Their talking points have all been nothing but a pack of cheap lies.
|
no_hypocrisy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #35 |
44. Nothing is "innocuous" when you're the victim of sexual |
|
harassment, and it's worse when you're 16 as you lack a network to seek assistance and the sophistication to demand that your treatment end immediately.
Harmless. Innocuous. Only meant it as a joke. Didn't mean anything.
How many times have any of you, DU, heard any or a variety of these throw-away excuses for inexcusable behavior against yourselves?
The Foley situation is not political payback. It's about what's appropriate behavior and respect for people. And there is never an appropriate time to harm someone.
|
kerry-is-my-prez
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:31 PM
Response to Original message |
34. It's ok to be a Predator as long as you're a Republican.... |
BlueEyedSon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #34 |
LostinVA
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:34 PM
Response to Original message |
37. That si NOT what the age of consent means |
|
Having sex with a minor is illegal in every state, unless you are within a certain age of the minor -- in most states it's 2-3 years.
|
MUSTANG_2004
(688 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #37 |
|
It varies from state to state, and is definitely not illegal in all states. Here's a link with some of the ages by state: http://teenadvice.about.com/library/weekly/qanda/blageofconsentchart.htm
|
BlueEyedSon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:35 PM
Response to Original message |
38. Is Foley married? What about adultery? |
Hoping4Change
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #38 |
41. This is clearly a case of sexual harassment, as these 16 year olds were |
|
Edited on Wed Oct-04-06 01:43 PM by Hoping4Change
subordinates and feared repercussions if they complained. Also I read that it is an offense to transmit obscene material across state lines.
|
The Wielding Truth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #41 |
74. Yep, yep, yep and Hashert aided and abetted. |
eleny
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #38 |
BlueEyedSon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #46 |
50. OK, nevermind. No crime there then! |
eleny
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:37 PM
Response to Original message |
39. Papantonio is brilliant |
|
He just said about Fordham that it's like rats jumping from the sinking ship. The R party has no time to recover before the election. Everything that Pat B. says - Mike comes back with a great retort cautioning us to watch for the Republican talking points. Just "brill".
|
eleny
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:39 PM
Response to Original message |
43. Patty Wetterling up now about her damning political ad |
|
Edited on Wed Oct-04-06 01:40 PM by eleny
Being put on the hot seat for her ad! But she's asserting that by not doing something, they caused further victimization.
Edit: She's running for Congress in Minnesota.
|
AX10
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:42 PM
Response to Original message |
47. These Conservatives have no shame. |
BattyDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:43 PM
Response to Original message |
49. Hey Buchanan ... what if it was YOUR kid? |
|
Would you be so unconcerned? :eyes:
|
Brundle_Fly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:49 PM
Response to Original message |
The Backlash Cometh
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 01:51 PM
Response to Original message |
56. What did Buchanan have to say about Lewinsky's age & consent? |
|
Edited on Wed Oct-04-06 01:52 PM by The Backlash Cometh
If I ever found out that an adult was talking to my 16 year old in those terms, they wouldn't be safe. At least their car wouldn't. I'd keyjob the words Viejo Verde.
|
Carni
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 02:24 PM
Response to Original message |
57. So gay marriage is wrong but same sex pedophiles are OK |
|
Is that what Pat is advocating?
|
fooj
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 02:37 PM
Response to Original message |
60. I heard him say that the guy who tried to keep the story off the air |
|
wasn't committing a crime. That's what I heard. Maybe I missed the other part.
|
Mayberry Machiavelli
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 04:45 PM
Response to Original message |
62. We don't yet KNOW what dude has or hasn't done. There's a whole lotta |
|
smoke, and it remains to be seen what fires are underneath.
My guess is there'll be plenty of fire when all is said and done, too.
|
Little Star
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 06:36 PM
Response to Original message |
65. Pat's sister needs to explain predatory |
|
warning signs to him. Even that so called over friendly e-mail was a hugh red flag that teenage pages were at risk.
|
SammyWinstonJack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 06:40 PM
Response to Original message |
66. No, a "heinous crime" is a legally elected President lying about |
|
sex between to consenting adults. :eyes: In that case, we impeach! :banghead: I am willing to bet if Foley had been a Dem., buchanan would be singing a different tune.
|
Subdivisions
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 07:27 PM
Response to Original message |
|
:shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:
|
gordianot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 09:48 PM
Response to Original message |
70. Typical Buchanan one day he is appalled, the next day he is on board. |
Toucano
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 09:54 PM
Response to Original message |
71. The COVER UP is the heinous crime! |
|
The emails and IMs are an ordinary crime.
As for the cover up, well that's where the meat of the story is.
|
daleo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-04-06 09:59 PM
Response to Original message |
72. Pat Buchanan is a member of the GOP (Guarding Old Perverts) |
|
He must protect Foley - it is his duty as a member of the GOoP (Groping Oodles of Pages).
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun May 05th 2024, 05:53 PM
Response to Original message |