Growing GOP Pedophile List

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Sloth wrote:

How long did this democrat have this communication? And how many more democrats “knew” about Foley? Hmm, Hmm.

Then there is this, now that the IM Page has been IDed.

“According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded an unwitting Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats.”

Well okay, I think everybody is entitled to believe in at least one conspiracy theory. So pick a good one.

An elaborate prank gone awry, that fell into enemy hands. Huh. Is that it?

Do you know it’s being reported that people knew Foley was a perv going back to '95?[/quote]

Psst, this isn’t a conspiracy theory. The Page was ID’ed. Jordan Edmund is his name. And people have contacted and interviewed friends close to him. Like I said, he’s lawyered up. So, it might be some time before we find out more.

122

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Wrong.

Didn’t apologize.

Even brought forth his accuser defiantley.

The page Studds had an affair with was not an “accuser”. It was a two way relationship. To an extent I would compare this to a professor/student relationship. College professors are not supposed to have relationships with their students. It is in bad taste even though it isn’t illegal. Yet it does happen, and even leads to marriage sometimes. If it’s a relationship, not a booty call or a horndog looking to get his rocks off, that is a little different.

Unlike Foley who chased multiple teenagers, hoping to score. With Foley it is a recurring pattern over his entire career in Congress. Foley is a horndog trying to get his rocks off.

Also, for the record Studds’ relationship was only discovered 10 years later. Studds and the page both said it was a mutual affair and it was nobody’s business. I believe the page was from Massachussets, so their state laws would pertain. It’s possible that the affair was legal, just in bad taste.

If Foley didn’t do anything illegal then I don’t think it is necessarily mandatory for him to resign… that would depend on his specific actions. It’s his call. Nobody had demanded that Foley resign, he resigned as soon as he heard ABC had transcripts.

And remember the laws have changed since 1973 when Studds had his affair. Foley helped write new laws against soliciting a minor via computer.

[/quote]

bradley,

Nice try.

Why exactly was “studds” (horrible name in this instance) censured? If everything was “cool,” why all the censure?

You are truly silly.

You are equating screwing an underage page with sending e-mails.

There really is no comparison.

Worse you are defending and in a sense, justifying, studds’ behavior.

All because of the party label.

I do like you and lumpy. You are 100% party line.

I appreciate your consistency.

JeffR

123

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Sloth wrote:

How long did this democrat have this communication? And how many more democrats “knew” about Foley? Hmm, Hmm.

Then there is this, now that the IM Page has been IDed.

“According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded an unwitting Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats.”

Well okay, I think everybody is entitled to believe in at least one conspiracy theory. So pick a good one.

An elaborate prank gone awry, that fell into enemy hands. Huh. Is that it?

Do you know it’s being reported that people knew Foley was a perv going back to '95?[/quote]

I think you missed the point. The pages knew Foley had a thing for little boys so they played along with Foley.

It makes no claim that Foley is innocent of anything.

124

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
Sloth wrote:

How long did this democrat have this communication? And how many more democrats “knew” about Foley? Hmm, Hmm.

Then there is this, now that the IM Page has been IDed.

“According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded an unwitting Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats.”

Well okay, I think everybody is entitled to believe in at least one conspiracy theory. So pick a good one.

An elaborate prank gone awry, that fell into enemy hands. Huh. Is that it?

Do you know it’s being reported that people knew Foley was a perv going back to '95?

I think you missed the point. The pages knew Foley had a thing for little boys so they played along with Foley.

It makes no claim that Foley is innocent of anything.[/quote]
More congressmen had to know something was going on with this guy,there must be others doing the same thing and trying to keep it quiet.They should find out who knew and get rid of them, be they dem. or repub.These people have no integrity they are just scumbags,looking to put easy green in their own pocket.

125

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:

What? Why the hell did we need to spend more on 9-11? Bin Laden and Al Qaida did it.

Don’t get him started on his 9/11 conspiracy bullshit.[/quote]

Yet everyday the truth becomes clearer…

Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice

State Dept. Confirms Rice-Tenet Meeting
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2521311&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Visa Express
The U.S. introduced the Visa Express program in May of 2001.

The Visa Express program was a U.S. State Department program that allowed residents of Saudi Arabia to enter the U.S. without proving their identities.

A senior State Department official described the program as “an open-door policy for terrorists.” No other country had this system to facilitate easy entry into the country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Express

126

[quote]ron33 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
Sloth wrote:

How long did this democrat have this communication? And how many more democrats “knew” about Foley? Hmm, Hmm.

Then there is this, now that the IM Page has been IDed.

“According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded an unwitting Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats.”

Well okay, I think everybody is entitled to believe in at least one conspiracy theory. So pick a good one.

An elaborate prank gone awry, that fell into enemy hands. Huh. Is that it?

Do you know it’s being reported that people knew Foley was a perv going back to '95?

I think you missed the point. The pages knew Foley had a thing for little boys so they played along with Foley.

It makes no claim that Foley is innocent of anything.
More congressmen had to know something was going on with this guy,there must be others doing the same thing and trying to keep it quiet.They should find out who knew and get rid of them, be they dem. or repub.These people have no integrity they are just scumbags,looking to put easy green in their own pocket.
[/quote]

I agree. It is likely congressmen of both partys were quite aware of this.

127

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:

What? Why the hell did we need to spend more on 9-11? Bin Laden and Al Qaida did it.

Don’t get him started on his 9/11 conspiracy bullshit.

Yet everyday the truth becomes clearer…

Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice

State Dept. Confirms Rice-Tenet Meeting
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2521311&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Visa Express
The U.S. introduced the Visa Express program in May of 2001.

The Visa Express program was a U.S. State Department program that allowed residents of Saudi Arabia to enter the U.S. without proving their identities.

A senior State Department official described the program as “an open-door policy for terrorists.” No other country had this system to facilitate easy entry into the country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Express[/quote]

Please deny the Holocaust next.

128

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
lumpy wrote:

Clinton had relations with a woman(22).
Foley had relations with 16 year old boys.

Only a total jackass would compare the 2.

lumpy, do you object if (as is being currently reported) the page was age 18?

Very simple question requiring a yes or no.

JeffR

Monica was 22.

If the page was 22, then NO.

Your refusal to show a shred of intellectual honesty is embarrassing.[/quote]
She was 22.
Of course hannity lie last night and said 19(wonder why).

But if forced to answer a meaningless question, I guess no I wouldn’t care if he was with an 18 year old in a consenual relation.

But at least one page WAS 16? so what’s the point?

“Sixteen-Year-Old Who Worked as Capitol Hill Page Concerned About E-mail Exchange with Congressman”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/sixteenyearold_.html

What’s dishonest is Jeffr’s
framing.

129

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
lumpy wrote:

Clinton had relations with a woman(22).
Foley had relations with 16 year old boys.

Only a total jackass would compare the 2.

lumpy, do you object if (as is being currently reported) the page was age 18?

Very simple question requiring a yes or no.

JeffR

Monica was 22.

If the page was 22, then NO.

Your refusal to show a shred of intellectual honesty is embarrassing.
She was 22.
Of course hannity lie last night and said 19(wonder why).

But if forced to answer a meaningless question, I guess no I wouldn’t care if he was with an 18 year old in a consenual relation.

But at least one page WAS 16? so what’s the point?

“Sixteen-Year-Old Who Worked as Capitol Hill Page Concerned About E-mail Exchange with Congressman”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/sixteenyearold_.html

What’s dishonest is Jeffr’s
framing.

[/quote]

lumpy,

Thanks for finally answering the question.

Now, did you read the link you posted?

Was there anything REMOTELY sexual about the exchange with the 16 year old?

I’m certainly not defending this guy, but, I haven’t seen one thing illegal, YET.

I know you are eager to make another “scandal.” However, with your recent history of trumping up “scandals” only to fail miserably, I’d be a bit more circumspect.

As we stand today, the e-mails with the sexual material were sent to 18 year olds or older.

However, keep me informed.

JeffR

130

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Sloth wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:

That’s the million dollar question.

As near as I can tell, rather than a direct party affiliation it has more to do with the religious aspect, hence making them more likely to be Republican?

http://www.thelawparty.com/FranklinCoverup/franklin.htm

Why are you assuming that religion makes one more likely to be a pediophile? Do you have some kind of academic research to back this up?

There is plenty of research to back that up. Children brought up with overly strict views and constant negative associations with sex (like it’s dirty and your going to hell type stuff) are more likely to be sexually confused and sexually dysfunctional adults.

That’s a fairly common consensus among behaviorists who profile abusers.

That’s just my own personal opinion on why there seem to be so many more Republican vs Democrat pedophiles - and the thing is, political party SHOULD have nothing at all to do with an issue like this but there is a definite, UNDENIABLE pattern.

It’s also silly to think that if there really were just as many Democrats, that the list wouldn’t have already been compiled LONG, LONG AGO by Republicans.

That’s their M.O. for cryin’ out loud - they write books entitled “Godless” and point out liberal depravity at EVERY available opportunity - if there were a Dem list you would SURE AS HELL have already seen it. (and not just in some blog or forum either)
[/quote]

I don’t want to open this entire debate up again, but the facts reveal that a higher percentage of child molesters are Gay, or claim to be Gay like Foley. They also tend to have some childhood trauma like Foley where he was molested.

So perhaps instead of revealing that a lot of the GOP are child molesters you have revealed that a lot are actual Gay.

131

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
lumpy wrote:

Clinton had relations with a woman(22).
Foley had relations with 16 year old boys.

Only a total jackass would compare the 2.

lumpy, do you object if (as is being currently reported) the page was age 18?

Very simple question requiring a yes or no.

JeffR

Monica was 22.

If the page was 22, then NO.

Your refusal to show a shred of intellectual honesty is embarrassing.
She was 22.
Of course hannity lie last night and said 19(wonder why).

But if forced to answer a meaningless question, I guess no I wouldn’t care if he was with an 18 year old in a consenual relation.

But at least one page WAS 16? so what’s the point?

“Sixteen-Year-Old Who Worked as Capitol Hill Page Concerned About E-mail Exchange with Congressman”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/sixteenyearold_.html

What’s dishonest is Jeffr’s
framing.

[/quote]

Sigh…the age of consent is 16, so what’s your point?

132

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
I don’t want to open this entire debate up again, but the facts reveal that a higher percentage of child molesters are Gay, or claim to be Gay like Foley. They also tend to have some childhood trauma like Foley where he was molested.

So perhaps instead of revealing that a lot of the GOP are child molesters you have revealed that a lot are actual Gay.

[/quote]

That is totally untrue. The vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual males… upwards of 90 percent.

If you have evidence that shows the opposite, lets see it.

133

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
lumpy wrote:

Clinton had relations with a woman(22).
Foley had relations with 16 year old boys.

Only a total jackass would compare the 2.

lumpy, do you object if (as is being currently reported) the page was age 18?

Very simple question requiring a yes or no.

JeffR

Monica was 22.

If the page was 22, then NO.

Your refusal to show a shred of intellectual honesty is embarrassing.
She was 22.
Of course hannity lie last night and said 19(wonder why).

But if forced to answer a meaningless question, I guess no I wouldn’t care if he was with an 18 year old in a consenual relation.

But at least one page WAS 16? so what’s the point?

“Sixteen-Year-Old Who Worked as Capitol Hill Page Concerned About E-mail Exchange with Congressman”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/sixteenyearold_.html

What’s dishonest is Jeffr’s
framing.

[/quote]

The age of consent in DC and Foley’s home state is 16. You are intellectually dishonest.

134

[quote]Brad61 wrote:

That is totally untrue. The vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual males… upwards of 90 percent.

[/quote]

The vast majority of males are hetero.

135

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Brad61 wrote:

That is totally untrue. The vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual males… upwards of 90 percent.

The vast majority of males are hetero.[/quote]

So what? Lothario said that most pedophiles are gay. But the truth is the numbers are exactly the opposite. Most pedophiles are heterosexual, and it’s not even close, either. The vast majority are hetero males, upwards of 90 percent.

136

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The age of consent in DC and Foley’s home state is 16. You are intellectually dishonest.[/quote]

Wrong. The age of consent in Florida is 18.

137

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The age of consent in DC and Foley’s home state is 16. You are intellectually dishonest.

Wrong. The age of consent in Florida is 18.

[/quote]

Link?

I have heard it said on TV and radio that it is 16 in both DC and Florida.

138

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
I don’t want to open this entire debate up again, but the facts reveal that a higher percentage of child molesters are Gay, or claim to be Gay like Foley. They also tend to have some childhood trauma like Foley where he was molested.

So perhaps instead of revealing that a lot of the GOP are child molesters you have revealed that a lot are actual Gay.

That is totally untrue. The vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual males… upwards of 90 percent.

If you have evidence that shows the opposite, lets see it.
[/quote]

What is the difference if a male adult is attracted to another male adult or male child? Just they age.

Here are a few studies that prove my statement:

In a paper published in 2000 by Blanchard, Barbareee, Bogaert, Dicky, Klassen, Kuban, and Zucker the authors noted that the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles" (p. 464). [Blanchard R, Barbaree HE, Bogaert AF, Dicky R, Klassen P, Kuban ME, Zucker KJ. Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2000;29:463-478.]

In another research article Freund and Watson estimate that homosexual men are twice as apt to be pedophiles. [Freund K, Watson RJ. The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 1992;18:34-43.]

139

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Brad61 wrote:

That is totally untrue. The vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual males… upwards of 90 percent.

The vast majority of males are hetero.

So what? Lothario said that most pedophiles are gay. But the truth is the numbers are exactly the opposite. Most pedophiles are heterosexual, and it’s not even close, either. The vast majority are hetero males, upwards of 90 percent.

[/quote]

First of all it was Lorsico, not Lothario. Second, there is plenty of data to show that pedophiles prefer same sex; that is GAY!

You just want to try and twist things and state that once a gay likes little boys he is no longer gay, he is a pedophile. But if that were true than the majority of pedophiles wouldn’t prefer the same sex, but the facts show that they do.

So post some actual facts or shut up.

140

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
lumpy wrote:

Clinton had relations with a woman(22).
Foley had relations with 16 year old boys.

Only a total jackass would compare the 2.

lumpy, do you object if (as is being currently reported) the page was age 18?

Very simple question requiring a yes or no.

JeffR

Monica was 22.

If the page was 22, then NO.

Your refusal to show a shred of intellectual honesty is embarrassing.
She was 22.
Of course hannity lie last night and said 19(wonder why).

But if forced to answer a meaningless question, I guess no I wouldn’t care if he was with an 18 year old in a consenual relation.

But at least one page WAS 16? so what’s the point?

“Sixteen-Year-Old Who Worked as Capitol Hill Page Concerned About E-mail Exchange with Congressman”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/sixteenyearold_.html

What’s dishonest is Jeffr’s
framing.

The age of consent in DC and Foley’s home state is 16. You are intellectually dishonest.[/quote]

How so? I don’t think anybody thinks they have had sex… the relations between Foley and pages seems to be via email, and IM…

So Zap Branigan, I’m sure you’re well aware that the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act says that discussion or solicitation of sexual acts between Foley and those under 18 would appear to be illegal.

That’s why Jeffr framing is dishonest…
and that’s why it would appear to the average reader that you don’t know what you’re talking about, because via the legislation above your own party has said Foley’s actions were probably illegal. (sucks to be debunked by your own team)

Not to really pile on but the age of consent in FL is 18.

And of course, I accept your apology in advance.