Every party has their problems, we the taxpayers shouldn't make it so easy for them to get away with it.

Just make sure you remember that. We try to get rid of ours and you guys get behind yours and continualy re-elect them. Now you go work on your guys and we'll work on ours.

Ted had/has money and a few well placed relatives.

The real problem now is that Foley hasn’t been charged with a crime, yet.

Well, if I had known people had screwed up for the last thirty years in Washington as Mr. Foley has, I wouldn't even think he had really done anything wrong. I simply didn't know that. I got a speeding ticket once and I paid it, but If I had known then that other people got speeding tickets, I would have fought it, tooth and nail. What we have here is a homosexual, who really hadn't tried to hide it, dealing with high school kids at his home, everywhere. Almost all of the Congressmen and Senators knew he was hitting on the kids, at least the kids did, AND DID NOTHING. As far as is known the other homosexuals in congress are not hitting on kids. However, since old "Ted" K. messed up, let Mr. Foley go his way.

I missed that....someone suggested he 'go his way'? I read "What Rep. Foley did was evil immoral and reprehensible. I hope he is fully punished unlike the below listed Democrats." I personally think he should be castrated and put in jail for 20 years. Along with all the others like him. I'm glad to see democrats finally wanting someone prosecuted for something. Maybe they will want to punish the terrorists next.

Do wish the Dems had been punished or not?

He clearly states that what Foley did was wrong and hope he is punished fully.

It's really not that difficult of a question.

I'll bet you didn't cut and paste that one Ahmed Basmati.

Try this:1983 Congressional page sex scandal was a political scandal in the United States involving members of the United States House of Representatives.

On July 14, 1983 the House Ethics Committee concluded that Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.) had engaged in sexual relationships with a minor, specifically a 17-year-old male congressional page. Studds's case was a 1973 relationship with a male page. He immediately pleaded guilty to the charges and the committee decided to simply reprimand him. On July 20, 1983, the House voted for censure, the first time that censure had been imposed for sexual misconduct.

Studds stood by the facts of the case and refused to apologize for his behavior, and even turned his back and ignored the censure being read to him. He called a press conference with the former page, in which both stated that the young man was legal and consenting. He continued to be reelected until his retirement in 1996.

Oh, yes, we knew what a pedophile was then.... he received three standing ovations from the State House in Mass., Remember??

I haven't forgotten about you, my slack-jawed mouthbreathing Constitution-hating dittomonkey friend.

Wasn't it less than two weeks ago you were prattling on about how the national pedophile organization NAMBLA was an exclusively liberal proposition?

Care to revise your opinion now about that in light of the Republican party's seeming embrace of pedophiles and their enablers?

Or are you gonna deny reality and retreat to the comfortable fantasies you've woven for yourself?

Hmmmm?

I guess if it happened 5, 7, 10 years ago, we can forget about it and only concentrate on the current event, right?
Okay, what happened to the corruption details of Congressman William Jefferson (D-LA) where they found $90,000 in his freezer after catching him on video accepting the bribe? Hmmmmmm? That was, oh let me see, THIS YEAR. Seems like the left side of the aisle wants to forget about that.
Oh, and let me think, oh yeah, last year Sandy Berger stole documents from the National Archives...gosh, is that too old to count? What's our time limit anyway?
Also, just how long did the democrats sit on this Foley thing anyway? Seems like it was known last year and they just let it sit until leaking it to ABC in August.... gee, really timely to let it out just 4 weeks before the election. Gosh, you don't think some democrats might be up to "dirty tricks" do you? Heavens !!!!

Copyright does not prohibit all copying or replication. In the United States, the fair use doctrine, codified by the Copyright Act of 1976 as 17 U.S.C. Section 107, permits some copying and distribution without permission of the copyright holder or payment to same. The statute does not clearly define fair use, but instead gives four non-exclusive factors to consider in a fair use analysis. Those factors are:

the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
what amount and proportion of the whole work was taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

You copied 100% of that article, Herr Major. "Fair Use" doesn't apply.

Always rationalizing, whether it's copyright infringement or enabling pedophiles.

Post your source or STFU.

Congratulations on apost without attacking or besmirching my family. There may be hope for you.

"The sanctioning of the unauthorized copying of entire works as fair use is an exception and not the rule. Therefore, anyone who uses all or substantially all of a work, particularly a literary work, is asking for trouble, and will probably be found to have exceeded the bounds of fair use.

The quantity, as well as the quality and importance, of the copied material must be considered. One criterion that courts frequently evaluate is to make certain that the user of the copyrighted material has taken no more than was necessary to achieve the purpose for which the user copied the materials."

http://www.publaw.com/work.html

From the article "How Much of Someone Else's Work May I Use Without Asking Permission?: The Fair Use Doctrine, Part I"
© Copyright 1996 Lloyd L. Rich

You see? This is fair use in action. I used as little as possible of a publicly available document in order to make my point. This is the intent of "fair use"...not your wholesale cut and paste.

Now let's see if you are man enough to apologize and admit you were wrong.

Sorry, I'll be researching the official code and get back to you. Hold your breath.

Marcus v. Rowley, 695 F.2d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir. 1983) ("[W]holesale copying of copyrighted material precludes application of the fair use doctrine")

You can also google "Los Angeles Times Vs. FreeRepublic" which put even greater restraints on copying complete articles simply to generate discussion.

Still waiting....

Can't you two come up with something better to argue. It is all BS! The same kind of BS we are getting out of Washington concerning a simple problem being made complicated by enormous volumes of foggy reports and BS. That is: trying to fight a war on the enemy's terms, trying to run an economy on credit, using mercernaries (giving them $40K to reup which they can't refuse) to fight our war instead of the draft, ignoring business crooks for the most part, or giving them light sentences to hasten their move to Bimini, hiring light duty cabinet members who can be manipulated, and: what is good for General Motors is good for the USA-----no, I mean the Seven Sisters oil companies, not GM.

... supposed to be an objective comment? I am thankful that I don't see America that way. How do you get up and go to work every day....geez.

For the THIRD time, I think Foley was sick, perverted and deserves to DIE! So explain to me how that enables him.

Can you provide the FBI report that shows any Republican knew or covered up for Foley, oh that's right there is NO EVIDENCE of a cover up. It's not the validity of the charge, it's the seriousness.

I hope you are as outraged if it can be proven that a Democrat had the disgusting IMs and held them endangering all other pages for political puposes, that would be disgusting would it not?

Like the man said, if you are going to misquote me, misquote me correctly:

"What Rep. Foley did was evil immoral and reprehensible. I hope he is fully punished unlike the below listed Democrats." I don't see the word BUT in the posting, but fact don't matter to you.

You are one ignorant and stupid person to state that reminding the public of the hypocracy of Democrats aids and comforts pedophiles.

You lie again when you state: "Rumsfeld gladly sold chemical and biological weapons to Saddam Hussein" Invetigations have proven other countries sold those to Iraq. I'd provide a link, but you don't care about facts anyway.

Finally, you mentioned my dad, now my mom and son. Why can't you pick on the living and keep to adults. Have I ever mentioed your family until your last sarcastic comment? Never mind, it reflect the party of smear and personal attacks, feel good when you go to church this Sunday. Let's try to stick to the point.

... is clueless Major. Don't waste your time responding to him. He makes up 'facts', and turns every response to a personal attack. We all read your statement that said, and I quote, "What Rep. Foley did was evil immoral and reprehensible. I hope he is fully punished unlike the below listed Democrats." He chose to ignore all of that. What do expect from an angry Arab who calls blacks (such as myself) monkeys, compares Bush to Hitler and thinks God is a figment of your imagination. As a fellow veteran who fought for free speech and freedom of the press, take my advice and let the pathetic dolt write his pablum so that others can be exposed to his obtuse comments and political lunacy. He is the kind of democrat that helps the GOP more than you or I could ever help! Semper-Fi Major.

He resigned, so that should be the end of it. IF he did something against the law, prosecute him. I think MANY of the folks in Congress knew what was going on, and I seriously doubt Foley is the last that will have trouble up there. Let's face it, they are all POWER HUNGRY people or they wouldn't be there in the first place.

I hate to jump into such a heated post but just a little info for those caring about the pages. They are there for three months and are constantly supervised. They live together under adult supervision. During the day, they are not allowed to leave the Capital building even to just go outside. They are not allowed to attend outside functions without adult supervision. Foley would not have been able to be alone with any page at the Capital, at an outside function or at their dorm. That is why most of his emails and IMs were to pages long after they had finished their jobs as pages. In no way should you interpret this as a defense of Foley or as any excuse for him but the pages were probably protected from him and I will be seriously amazed if he actually abused a page while they were serving as pages. Even if he wanted to, and I expect any reasonable person knows by now that he did want to, it would be almost impossible. We can be thankful that during their service the pages are adequately protected from predators like Foley. I will be disappointed if the page jobs are eliminated because of this. It is really a great experience for the kids. Having said that, please let the comdemnations of Foley continue.

ABC was detailing one instance where Foley was able to take a page out on a “date”. Evidently there was a “Congressional auction”, where people bid on things like a flag from a Congressman’s office and things like that. Congressman Foley offered “A Private Lunch With Congressman Foley”. The bidding was spirited, as Foley was known to help young men’s careers (we now know what that was conditional upon).

After the bidding was over, Foley announced that the amount raised was incredible, and lunch with him wasn’t good enough for the winning bidder, a congressional page. He asked the page office, and received permission, to take a page out for a night on the town, to Morton’s Steakhouse in downtown DC.

Granted, this may have been an exception rather than the rule, but it does show how Foley worked the system to his advantage. As long as he had pedophile enablers like ArmyMajRetd and OldSchoolFootball willing and able to excuse his sexual misconduct in the name of Republican unity, he flaunted the rules.

If you are going to LIE and say I enable pedophilia, then your support of Clinton enables sexual harassers, and accused rapists, (Juanita Broderick).

The family of the page in question has released a letter, part of it states:

"In the fall of 2005, as soon as Congressman Alexander became aware of the e-mails received by our son, he called us. He explained that his office had been made aware of these e-mails by our son and that while he thought the e-mails were overly friendly, he did not think, nor did we think, that they were offensive enough to warrant an investigation".

Now riddle me this rice boy, if the parents didn't think it warranted an investigation, what would trigger the INQUISITION you are retroactively demanding.

There is 1 bad Republican, who was FORCED OUT. Can't wait for your next scandal so he can throw a hissy fit like you, oh that's right Republicans stick to issues like national defense, taxes, etc.

Army Major doesn't get it....Army Major asks: "Now riddle me this rice boy, if the parents didn't think it warranted an investigation, what would trigger the INQUISITION you are retroactively demanding."

A very simple answer that Army Major doesn't understand: THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF ANY REMAINING PAGES AND ANY PAGES CONSIDERING SERVICE. Those parents "didn't want to rock the boat." They didn't "want to get involved." They cared only about their own family and not the next page coming into Foley's crosshairs. Sexual Assault victims don’t come forward. Consider this—if you were a highly succesful young man, serving as a page in Congress would you want your name associated with homosexuality? NO. And so the next page would not be warned.

Army-Major lapses into the victim-centric mentality that America now adores. It is not about one or two pages. It is about the integrity of the program. If the Republicans now think that counseling, rehabilatation and resignation are appropriate for Foley, why didn't they think that when this kid came forward? Did they even counsel Foley about it? Did they even tell Foley to keep his sexuality out of "The People's House" ? Doubt it....Both parties are to blame. But perhaps Army-Major is right— Basmati probably gave Clinton a pass on his immorality.

Prison at least if he proven to have used his power and influence to harass and pressure any child. Yes, I think 16 year olds are children.

My only point to rice boy was during the course of business in the government, when dealing with the crisis of the day how many investigations can you initiate based on limited information. In this case, Hasert was told (did not see) inappropriate e-mails. He had Foley spoken to and the contact stopped.

Could more have been done, certainly. Should something more have been done, it is hard to say. I want both the FBI and the House to investigate and let us know the facts, not use the rumors and smears from political operatives. Punish ANY wrong doers, even Republicans and fix the system.

If Nancy Pelosi wants the truth, how come she doesn't want Louis Freeh, former FBI Director to investigate?

If you are going to LIE and say I enable pedophilia, then your support of Clinton enables sexual harassers, and accused rapists, (Juanita Broderick).

The family of the page in question has released a letter, part of it states:

"In the fall of 2005, as soon as Congressman Alexander became aware of the e-mails received by our son, he called us. He explained that his office had been made aware of these e-mails by our son and that while he thought the e-mails were overly friendly, he did not think, nor did we think, that they were offensive enough to warrant an investigation".

Now riddle me this rice boy, if the parents didn't think it warranted an investigation, what would trigger the INQUISITION you are retroactively demanding.

There is 1 bad Republican, who was FORCED OUT. Can't wait for your next scandal so he can throw a hissy fit like you, oh that's right Republicanns stick to issues like national defense, taxes, etc.

Basmati is a good contributor. I disagree being a conservative with some of his posts. What I have been hearing from Republicans is, "Well yeah but Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank..."

So?

Neither party will root out the scum. Hastert is now dodging the revelations that Congress knew. He was aware of the emails but did nothing: "We didn't consider them too serious". He is a known homosexual communicating exclusively with young boys. No red flags Denny? The fact that Foley wasn't working overtime to help the futures of qualified young women was a coincidence? They would rather have Chemical Ali in Congress, as long as he has the right party label. That's why we end up re-electing absolute dopes to Congress who don't have one tenth of the morality and virtue that they claim on their websites. And it goes all the way down to the local level. A friend of mine works in the Savannah PD. He said that a few years ago the vice squad was told to slack off the operations at the waterfront hotels during the annual City Association convention because too many mayors and councilmen were getting arrested. I am going to do my part and start with a vote for McGraw. If he turns out to be a Pelosi lover, fine, I will vote against him next time.

Although I can't see how the "adult" could possibly watch over each page at any given time. The other concern is who the "adult" is that's supposed to supervise the kids. Even Foley was supposed to be an adult.

The key is that no kid should be left alone with any adult at any time. How sad is it that we've come to this.