Congressman Mark Foley resigned

[IdahoMom]

I am in total agreement with you. I really don't understand why Clinton's name keeps coming up in this Foley mess. Bill Clinton was an adulterer - Foley is a sexual predator.

What about the women that have said Clinton raped them? I don't think rape=adultery.:waitasec:

 

[jannuncutt]

What about the women that have said Clinton raped them? I don't think rape=adultery.:waitasec:

Where has it been proven that he raped anyone? I don't believe that he did.

 

[windovervocalcords]

Where has it been proven that he raped anyone? I don't believe that he did.

Where was the trial? Where was the conviction?

Did I miss the whole thing?

 

[IdahoMom]

Where was the trial? Where was the conviction?

Did I miss the whole thing?

The woman were successfully intimidated.

Let's not act coy...we all know the names, if we've followed American news in the last decade. I never said there was a trial. I never said there was a conviction. I said the 'women said they were raped'...nothing other than that.

 

[nanandjim]

...Let's not act coy...we all know the names...

You should have just said, "I don't recall." That line worked very well for one married couple.

 

[Straitfan]

Ok here we go again, you make it about politic's , and then attempt to justify anything a Dem has done!

So, if you think what President's do is ok, guess you should think everything else is, right?, as long as they are a dem. Wrong is wrong is wrong, period... What Foley is accused of is wrong, what Clinton did is wrong.. Just another example of what is WRONG with this country continues.. Morals aren't simple something we can pick and choose which "ones" are OK!

 

[jannuncutt]

Ok here we go again, you make it about politic's , and then attempt to justify anything a Dem has done!

So, if you think what President's do is ok, guess you should think everything else is, right?, as long as they are a dem. Wrong is wrong is wrong, period... What Foley is accused of is wrong, what Clinton did is wrong.. Just another example of what is WRONG with this country continues.. Morals aren't simple something we can pick and choose which "ones" are OK!

Oh course, what Clinton did was wrong. He was impeached for it!

 

[Paladin]

The woman were successfully intimidated.

Let's not act coy...we all know the names, if we've followed American news in the last decade. I never said there was a trial. I never said there was a conviction. I said the 'women said they were raped'...nothing other than that.

I call BS. You claim they were successfully intimidated...where is the proof? That's just as foolhardy as me claiming the GOP put those women up to it.

 

[IdahoMom]

I call BS. You claim they were successfully intimidated...where is the proof? That's just as foolhardy as me claiming the GOP put those women up to it.

IMO

LOL. "Call BS" all you want. I have seen the interviews with the women and heard their stories and in my opinion, they were intimidated at the time it happened. There are many ways to intimidate someone- some more subtle than others. Its an ages old story about a person fearing standing up to a person in a position of authority. We've all seen it before, so in these cases, it's certainly NOT out of the realm of possibility. IMO, of course.

IMO

 

[Paladin]

IMO
IMO, of course.
IMO

Hehe, of course.

 

[Pepper]

Ok here we go again, you make it about politic's , and then attempt to justify anything a Dem has done!

So, if you think what President's do is ok, guess you should think everything else is, right?, as long as they are a dem. Wrong is wrong is wrong, period... What Foley is accused of is wrong, what Clinton did is wrong.. Just another example of what is WRONG with this country continues.. Morals aren't simple something we can pick and choose which "ones" are OK!

Making sexual overtures to any page or intern or servant, and using one's position of power and prestige to succeed in this seduction is WRONG regardless of the predator's political persuasion.

Clinton was wrong. Foley was wrong.

For everyone that is defending Clinton, let's just say what if a University president was caught having a sexual relationship with one of his student interns? And for the sake of argument, let's just say she was a graduate student intern and over 21. My guess is that the community would DEMAND that university presiden's immediate resignation.

 

[Nova]

Making sexual overtures to any page or intern or servant, and using one's position of power and prestige to succeed in this seduction is WRONG regardless of the predator's political persuasion.

Clinton was wrong. Foley was wrong.

For everyone that is defending Clinton, let's just say what if a University president was caught having a sexual relationship with one of his student interns? And for the sake of argument, let's just say she was a graduate student intern and over 21. My guess is that the community would DEMAND that university presiden's immediate resignation.

Not necessarily, Pepper. Universities have been wrestling with that very question, though professor/student relationships are far more damning that anything the president of a university might do. Such presidents have minimal contact with or control over students.

The question is difficult precisely because most cases involve students who are legal adults.

Some universities have tried to ban faculty/student relationships, others just "strongly recommend" against them.

 

[Nova]

Ok here we go again, you make it about politic's , and then attempt to justify anything a Dem has done!

So, if you think what President's do is ok, guess you should think everything else is, right?, as long as they are a dem. Wrong is wrong is wrong, period... What Foley is accused of is wrong, what Clinton did is wrong.. Just another example of what is WRONG with this country continues.. Morals aren't simple something we can pick and choose which "ones" are OK!

Well, no, what's wrong with this country is that at least half the population never matured beyond a second-grade mentality.

Grown-ups recognize that some "wrongs" are serious, some are trivial, but all may be evaluated in terms of the harm directly caused by said "wrong."

 

[reb]

HELLO..... clinton wasn't a child molester, at least she was legal.

 

[Cypros]

Not necessarily, Pepper. Universities have been wrestling with that very question, though professor/student relationships are far more damning that anything the president of a university might do. Such presidents have minimal contact with or control over students.

The question is difficult precisely because most cases involve students who are legal adults.

Some universities have tried to ban faculty/student relationships, others just "strongly recommend" against them.

Yep. I don't think there would be much response to the situation of a university president with a consenting student since both are adults. I think most would lose respect for the president since he/she would mot likely be significantly older than the student and thus in a position of using his/her status of power and prestige to manipulate the student. But only if the said president tried to use his/her position to gain favors for the student (pressure professors to give that student a better grade than deserved) would it be unethical. Nothing criminal.

A relationship between professor and student is much more troublesome. The professor is in direct control of the student's grade and thus able to manipulate the younger, less powerful student. Of course, I have known of students having affairs with their professor and then using that to guarantee A's, gaining approval on a dissertation, etc. by threatening to make the relationship public (and telling the spouse!!). So either way it is a very bad idea for professors and students (like bosses and employees) to get intimately involved. But it is not illegal and only in few universities these days would it risk one's job (only if it is written in the school's code).

I think Clinton was an excellent and capable president (although not perfect), but I lost a lot of respect for him on a personal level when the story of Monica Lewinsky came out. He should have avoided her at all costs because of their relative positions (not to mention the fact that he was married!). Only the FACT that she initiated the relationship (by her own admission) saves him a little IMO because it was not him that was pursuing her. There was no sexual harassment. She was VERY willing. Despite my distaste for his poor behavior and choice in this matter, I do not think that it warranted an impeachment and in fact it technically was not the reason he was impeached. All the Republican hounddogs had to get him for was that he lied about a sexual relationship while under oath. If we are going to impeach on lying, the George W. Bush would have been gone ages ago. Personally, I think that incompetence is a much better reason to impeach than an illicit but legal affair.

 

[Maral]

Pedro, you seem to be riding a one trick pony. I am definitely not minimizing Foley's totally unacceptable behavior. Our elected officials have a tendency to believe themselves totally above the law. They do need to be held accountable for their actions.

Clinton did pardon Mel Reynoldsl. If you remember he had sex with a sixteen year old and was also convicted of spending violations.

Barney Frank lived with a male prostitute who was running a sex for hire business right out of their apartment. He did get censured, but is now a top ranking congressman.

Gerry Studds was caught having sex with a 16 year old male. He refused to resign and continued to serve.

I believe an interviewee on ABC told Charlie Gibson, there's more to come out on others. But, if they're Democrats, then you can bet your bottom dollar you won't hear about them untill after November 7.

Disgusting as Foley is, there are others out there that are just as bad. Oh, BTW, the above named Congressmen are/were Democrats.

I just saw on the news that Gerry Studds passed away early this morning in Boston.

I'm not defending Studds' immoral involvement with a page, but the big difference between his situation and Foley's is that when the Democratic leadership in Congress found out about it, they censured him immediately. The Republican leadership tried to cover up Foley's.

 

[Marthatex]

Was 16 legal at that time? Good point about the difference there, Maral.

 

[Nova]

I'm not defending Studds' immoral involvement with a page, but the big difference between his situation and Foley's is that when the Democratic leadership in Congress found out about it, they censured him immediately. The Republican leadership tried to cover up Foley's.

As always, Maral, you cut straight to the point.

Yes, there were or are (as one poster put) "bad apples" in both parties. The issue here is that the Republican leadership thinks maintaining its own power is more important than protecting teenagers.

 

[Pedro]

The issue here is that the Republican leadership thinks maintaining its own power is more important than protecting teenagers.

Quote of the day!

 

[Nova]

Quote of the day!

Our local state assembly-person, Bonnie Garcia, was visiting a high school social studies class when someone mentioned Governor Schwartzenegger. "I wouldn't kick him out of my bed," Ms. Garcia replied. Apparently, some of the parents present thought this an inappropriate remark in front of high school seniors.

This morning, Ms. Garcia replied in the press, not admitting she said what was reported, but apologizing if her comments were "inappropriate." She then proceeded to launch into a lengthy diatribe against Democrats for supposedly exposing her remarks.

This latter Republican tactic is so pervasive it may well have come from a Karl Rove memo. When your misdeeds are exposed (and Garcia's were admittedly mild), just blame the opposition for leaking them to the press (whether or not there is any evidence the opposition is the source of the leak).