Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Have you read the IMs?

http://abcnews.go.com/images/WNT/02-02-03b.pdf

Wow. I have a totally stiff wood now.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
How did Clinton screw up in Somalia?

By not backing out of the lame-duck commitment of troops to a squishy UN mandate entered into by George H.W. Bush. Duh.

Jeez, Spanky -- 8 years of Clintonian screw-ups, and this is the one you pick? How about Rwanda or Haiti?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Bob
By not backing out of the lame-duck commitment of troops to a squishy UN mandate entered into by George H.W. Bush. Duh.

Jeez, Spanky -- 8 years of Clintonian screw-ups, and this is the one you pick? How about Rwanda or Haiti?

Or Kosovo. I mean, imagine intefering in another country to stop a genocide, doing so successfully, and then just leaving! And all without wasting American lives. What the hell was Clinton thinking?

You go in, you take over, and you tell people to start voting. That's how a humanitarian intervention is supposed to work.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Wow. I have a totally stiff wood now.

2. I can't wait to get home to my towel.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

And I'm not sure comparing a congressman's direct email communication with a 16 yo to what adults and lawyers say on a chatboard makes a hell of a lot of sense. Especially a board where subjects such as double-anal penetration, rimjobs, and "earning your redwings" are standard topics of conversation.

I'm not saying you should resign your position on the board.

But you have elevated inappropraite IMs (that I would not want my daughter or son receiving) to actual sex with a minor. Go check TM's link--if he'd had sex with the boy it would have been legal, at least if she were a girl.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm not saying you should resign your position on the board.

But you have elevated inappropraite IMs (that I would not want my daughter or son receiving) to actual sex with a minor. Go check TM's link--if he'd had sex with the boy it would have been legal, at least if she were a girl.

Yet it would apparently be illegal, under a law he helped draft, to solicit the sex via email or IMs.

Some additional emails/IMs that I've seen could be read to suggest such a violation.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/..._show_fol.html

• Maf54: I want to see you
  Teen: Like I said not til feb…then we will go to dinner
  Maf54: and then what happens
  Teen: we eat…we drink…who knows…hang out…late into the night

and

• Maf54: I miss you lots since san diego.
  Teen: ya I cant wait til dc
  Maf54:

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Yet it would apparently be illegal, under a law he helped draft, to solicit the sex via email or IMs.

Some additional emails/IMs that I've seen could be read to suggest such a violation.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/..._show_fol.html

• Maf54: I want to see you
  Teen: Like I said not til feb…then we will go to dinner
  Maf54: and then what happens
  Teen: we eat…we drink…who knows…hang out…late into the night

and

• Maf54: I miss you lots since san diego.
  Teen: ya I cant wait til dc
  Maf54:

If that is the worst out there, I have no doubt a good lawyer has a fighting chance of keeping him from serving time.

But that's not what this is about, is it? Don't we all want our lawmakers to have slightly higher standards, or to at least pretend to have slightly higher standards, than the guys who spend their time playing hoops without a ball and filing down shanks with their bed frame?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm not saying you should resign your position on the board.

If this board were not for random chatting among lawyers, but rather a chat board of the anti-pornography and child abuse coalition of America, would you feel different?

But you have elevated inappropraite IMs (that I would not want my daughter or son receiving) to actual sex with a minor. Go check TM's link--if he'd had sex with the boy it would have been legal, at least if she were a girl.

I have elevated what appears to be soliciting a 16yo boy for sex, talking about, hoping for it -- and doing all of the above time and time again -- to actual sex. Because apparently that's where he was trying to go. (And at this point, we don't know if he succeeded.)

But, again -- please stand on the "it was ok because while they were in DC they were of age" defense. I applaud this.

It's right up there with "Bush never said that HE believed Iraq was buying uranium from Niger!"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Gerry Studds invented that. Barney Frank perfected it.

He's gay, so he must like boys? Homesexuality and pedophelia are two different things.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
If this board were not for random chatting among lawyers, but rather a chat board of the anti-pornography and child abuse coalition of America, would you feel different?

About the posters' commitment to their beliefs? Sure.

How many times do I have to say "I'm not defending him" before you read it?* What I'm still trying to figure out is why you're going after someone with such dudgeon when politicians (in your party, no less) have engaged in comparable yet more reprehensible conduct with narry a comparative word from you. Foley has resigned, which is more than several democrats embroiled in sex scandals involving actual sex, sometimes with actual minors, have done. So: why are you elevating attempt to commit a crime above the actual commission of that crime?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
He's gay, so he must like boys? Homesexuality and pedophelia are two different things.

I don't see how this point bears any relevance. Gerry Studds had an actual sexual relationship with a page. I guess he was lucky he couldn't IM to conduct the seduction--he went for it straight away.

(Rather than resign, he ran, and was reelected, several more times.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
There's room for both this election season.

Had Bush done whatever he felt he had to do to get us into a war where he had a strategy for succeeding and disengaging, the country would forgive him. Indeed, the country (and most of the Democrats in Congress) have given him plenty of support to pursue his war. Five years later, with minimal signs of success and with the situation worsening even in Afghanistan, his leadership is and should be questioned. The current leadership in the White House and Congress simply can't tell anyone what they've actually accomplished over the last five years.

They shifted the tax burden to future taxpayers.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I don't see how this point bears any relevance. Gerry Studds had an actual sexual relationship with a page. I guess he was lucky he couldn't IM to conduct the seduction--he went for it straight away.

(Rather than resign, he ran, and was reelected, several more times.)

I don't recall the facts about Studds, and am sure you're right. But you were the one who mentioned Barney Frank, which is what I was responding to.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
About the posters' commitment to their beliefs? Sure.

How many times do I have to say "I'm not defending him" before you read it?* What I'm still trying to figure out is why you're going after someone with such dudgeon when politicians (in your party, no less) have engaged in comparable yet more reprehensible conduct with narry a comparative word from you. Foley has resigned, which is more than several democrats embroiled in sex scandals involving actual sex, sometimes with actual minors, have done. So: why are you elevating attempt to commit a crime above the actual commission of that crime?

Because the President and the head of the Republicans in Congress, neither of whom have any real control or authority over him, didn't fired him earlier.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't recall the facts about Studds, and am sure you're right. But you were the one who mentioned Barney Frank, which is what I was responding to.

Studds: Had a sexual relationship with a 17 y.o. page. Argued, as did the page, that their relationship was their private matter. Reelected.

Frank: Used his position to obtain favors for an apparently romantic companion, who also happened to be running a brothel from Frank's house. Reelected.

Foley: Carried on sexually explicitly internet conversations with a 17 y.o. page, perhaps with the hope of an actual sexual relationship. Resigned.