New Foley Instant Messages; Had Internet Sex While Awaiting House Vote

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from hapaboy:

Do you realize what a total idiot you are?!?

My post was in response to Artie21's insinuating that I, AAA, Jem, etc. are child predators.

Not only that, my response clearly indicates that I AM NOT DEFENDING FOLEY:



Calling assholes like Artie21 and you names does not mean I am calling them such because of your position vis a vis Foley. Get it?

Good grief, you're such an utter moron. That you "teach" at the university level is a crime as you obviously couldn't research what letter follows A in the alphabet.

Keep trying, "Professor."

You can start another thread and call anyone with any name you like, and no one will accuse you of defending pedophiles. The only purpose that you come into a thread discussing the Foley scandal and calling everyone names, is to disrupt the discussion and in effect defend the pedophile.

Artie21 was simply pointing out that your rightwingers were dead silent on condemning Foley. And your disclaimers were just lame covers for your attacks.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from Pabst:

I don't think anyone is defending Foley.

Try to clue the "professor" in on this little fact, Pabst. Clearly when it comes to me his eyeballs roll up in his skull and he just sees crimson....

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

You can start another thread and call anyone with any name you like, and no one will accuse you of defending pedophiles. The only purpose that you come into a thread discussing the Foley scandal and calling everyone names, is to disrupt the discussion and in effect defend the pedophile.

Dolt, threads get interrupted here on a daily basis. You do it to my threads as well. The reason I commented on this thread, as is plain to see, is to congratulate Captain Obvious for making a statement I strongly agreed with. That you do not agree with him and decide to call anyone who defends him (not Foley, the good Captain) a protecter of pedophiles is disingenuous or simply proof positive that you have the intellect of a flea.

Artie21 was simply pointing out that your rightwingers were dead silent on condemning Foley. And your disclaimers were just lame covers for your attacks.

Oh really, yeah, it sure sounds like it:

Quote from Artie 21:

Does Foley's masquerade as a defender of children tell us something about Hapaboy, AAA, Jem, et al and the skeletons (small boned) that may be in thier closets?

Try again, "Professor."

Man, how many times a day you reveal the shortcomings of our country's "higher education" system is amazing.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Pabst:

I don't think anyone is defending Foley. I do think it's a tad overblown. A gay guy hitting on a 16yo by e-mail is not exactly the same as kidnapping a four year old and then subjecting him/her to sodomy and strangulation.

Personally I don't think it matters whether a guy fantasizes about sticking his dick in a sixty year old man or a sixteen year old boy he's still a fucked up perv....

The lead sentence is always the dead give away. When someone says "I'm not a fan of Bush," he always follows with how great Bush is.

This defense has become a standard one used by the right wingers. First they confuse "gay" with "pedophile." Then they show their outrage on the "gay" part of it, while completely overlooking the "underage" part of it. Then they give this innocent look "why aren't you liberals supposed to be tolerant?"

You are clearly defending the pedophile.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from hapaboy:

Dolt, threads get interrupted here on a daily basis. You do it to my threads as well.

Right - I interrupt your threads because I strongly disagree with whatever your points are in those threads.

Likewise, your rude interruptions of the threads on Foley scandal can only be interpreted as your intention to defend the pedophile.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Right - I interrupt your threads because I strongly disagree with whatever your points are in those threads.

Likewise, your rude interruptions of the threads on Foley scandal can only be interpreted as your intention to defend the pedophile.

That is such elementary, childish thinking.

"Can only be interpreted as..." Good grief. You really do live in a fantasy world, don't you? Try applying your logic to the numerous threads in this forum. You will most likely self-destruct from the resulting confusion as the data will very often not coincide with your rigid little mental program.

I'm sorry, you're beyond help.

 

[traderob]

Hypothetically:Say he had REAL sex with the 16year old boy instead of sending him an email. According to james bond that (real sex) is legal.
Would there be any scandal with that, if so why?

 

[Avid_Consumer]

i thought we discovered together that inflammatory language derails constructive sharing of views. the harsh language seems to put the other opinion in the position of having to do the same in order to end up at a civil conversation

tradernik, you're watching, right? what do you think?

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from roberk:

Hypothetically:Say he had REAL sex with the 16year old boy instead of sending him an email. According to james bond that (real sex) is legal.
Would there be any scandal with that, if so why?

Yes, there would be a scandal with that. Even though in this case federal internet law would not be applied, and local law (consent age 16) applies, there is still the issue of sexual harassment, sex predation using one's power, and morality.

IANAL, but the common definition of pedophilia is underage sex with an age difference greater than 5 years. So Foley is still a pedophile in that case even though the government might not find a basis to prosecute him. However, it's highly unlikely that he would have ONLY real sex but no other communication with the boys (phone, email, etc). So very likely the government can still prosecute him based on those communications.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from roberk:

Hypothetically:Say he had REAL sex with the 16year old boy instead of sending him an email. According to james bond that (real sex) is legal.
Would there be any scandal with that, if so why?

Exactly! 16 is age of consent in D.C. Imagine that! Why is it when anyone points out the bullshit from either party the fanatics come out and accuse the person of being a supporter of the opposing party? The radical left/right are so completely entrenched in their madness they simply refuse to see the truth. It's such a simple truth to see. Both parties are failing miserably to seve the mainstream of America. Christ! It just makes me want to puke!