Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Foley's Privacy Infringed
Let me start out by saying, I think mostly everyone is missing the point when it comes to this Foley scandal.
Everybody is angry at Foley for what he did. They've called him this and called him that. He's a pervert, he's a weirdo, he's gay. Yada, yada yada. Probably, but that's not the point.
Others are making this a Republican and Democrat issue. Foley was bad, but Clinton was worse! Probably, but again, not the point.
The point is simply, why do we know this? Why do we know about a congressman's IM conversation?
Let's look at the facts. First, the kid is 18 and of age. Second, there was no sign of the kid objecting to anything the congressman says. Read the transcript on ABCnews.com, There's more LOLing in the conversation than there are Black Rhinoceros' in Africa. Third, I don't care what you say, discussing how you masturbate isn't "cyber sex". Therefore, I believe he did not break any internet law. Not one.
So if that's true, then why the hell do we know about this private conversation? Yes, I agree he's a weirdo, yes, I agree what he did was wrong, but he broke no law. And because he broke no law, I find it disgusting that this man's personal business can just be leaked like this.
Is privacy no longer important to you people?! This isn't some NSA terrorist wiretap. This is a guy having a legal and private conversation that is being intruded on. He broke no law, he posed no threat, and there was no victim. What is happening with this country?!
Of course this is a new story and not all of the details are set straight, but as I see it now someone working with him found out about this and told ABCnews. Though I could be wrong. But if that's how it happened, I don't believe it was necessary for ABCnews to cover this story, it looks like smearing and intruding to me. Instead I would like to see the congressmen who knew, sit down for a private conversation about what's going one and try and get Foley to clean up his act, step down, or just do it somewhere else. But the whole country didn't need to know, it's not our business. You must understand that Foley's personal life and his political life are two different things.
Now if your response to my opinion here is that "He's just standing up for him because he's a Republican." Just shut up. Please. If you know the first thing about me you know that I believe both parties are bad. They take illegal money, smear, and successfully waste taxpayer money in attempt to keep their job. They don't care about America. They don't care if privacy and freedom is at stake. They want to be powerful, that's all.
That is why this is not political to me. I could give a rats about what happens to either party in result of this. If these were average citizens, I'd be just as outraged because unlike politicians I actually care about this country.
Everybody is angry at Foley for what he did. They've called him this and called him that. He's a pervert, he's a weirdo, he's gay. Yada, yada yada. Probably, but that's not the point.
Others are making this a Republican and Democrat issue. Foley was bad, but Clinton was worse! Probably, but again, not the point.
The point is simply, why do we know this? Why do we know about a congressman's IM conversation?
Let's look at the facts. First, the kid is 18 and of age. Second, there was no sign of the kid objecting to anything the congressman says. Read the transcript on ABCnews.com, There's more LOLing in the conversation than there are Black Rhinoceros' in Africa. Third, I don't care what you say, discussing how you masturbate isn't "cyber sex". Therefore, I believe he did not break any internet law. Not one.
So if that's true, then why the hell do we know about this private conversation? Yes, I agree he's a weirdo, yes, I agree what he did was wrong, but he broke no law. And because he broke no law, I find it disgusting that this man's personal business can just be leaked like this.
Is privacy no longer important to you people?! This isn't some NSA terrorist wiretap. This is a guy having a legal and private conversation that is being intruded on. He broke no law, he posed no threat, and there was no victim. What is happening with this country?!
Of course this is a new story and not all of the details are set straight, but as I see it now someone working with him found out about this and told ABCnews. Though I could be wrong. But if that's how it happened, I don't believe it was necessary for ABCnews to cover this story, it looks like smearing and intruding to me. Instead I would like to see the congressmen who knew, sit down for a private conversation about what's going one and try and get Foley to clean up his act, step down, or just do it somewhere else. But the whole country didn't need to know, it's not our business. You must understand that Foley's personal life and his political life are two different things.
Now if your response to my opinion here is that "He's just standing up for him because he's a Republican." Just shut up. Please. If you know the first thing about me you know that I believe both parties are bad. They take illegal money, smear, and successfully waste taxpayer money in attempt to keep their job. They don't care about America. They don't care if privacy and freedom is at stake. They want to be powerful, that's all.
That is why this is not political to me. I could give a rats about what happens to either party in result of this. If these were average citizens, I'd be just as outraged because unlike politicians I actually care about this country.
# posted by Cody O'Connor @ 10/03/2006 05:23:00 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Regardless of whether he broke the law he should step down. Seems to me like he's unfit to serve. I wouldn't want someone like that representing me in Congress. Also I highly doubt that the government tracked his AIM conversations. And if they did it's probably because he was at work. The government should have the right to monitor thier own employees I think. Not anyone else of course, but thier own employees? Of course. Plus as this guys employer I think we're entitled to know what he's doing while he's supposed to be working for us.
# posted by 
: 10/03/2006 6:47 PM
: 10/03/2006 6:47 PM
Robby said...
"Regardless of whether he broke the law he should step down. Seems to me like he's unfit to serve."
okay, but your still forgetting the fact that someone (I don't know who yet) with the help of ABCnews leaked this story, when it shouldn't even be a story.
"Also I highly doubt that the government tracked his AIM conversations."
I'm not saying that, it was probably just some snoop who felt like being a tattle tale. The media didn't have to cover it though. If it was found out by other members of the congress, then they could have had private discussions, but publishing the story like this? There's no need. It just looks like smearing to me.
"Regardless of whether he broke the law he should step down. Seems to me like he's unfit to serve."
okay, but your still forgetting the fact that someone (I don't know who yet) with the help of ABCnews leaked this story, when it shouldn't even be a story.
"Also I highly doubt that the government tracked his AIM conversations."
I'm not saying that, it was probably just some snoop who felt like being a tattle tale. The media didn't have to cover it though. If it was found out by other members of the congress, then they could have had private discussions, but publishing the story like this? There's no need. It just looks like smearing to me.
You guys have to bear with me some here, I'm dealing with a story where not all of the facts are straight, so when everything is put together it will probably warrant another post. And I don't know, maybe my opinion could change based on something huge left out, but from what I know now, this is my reaction.
okay, but your still forgetting the fact that someone (I don't know who yet) with the help of ABCnews leaked this story, when it shouldn't even be a story.
Morally or realistically? I mean come on. You know how this country works. Things like this always get out.
I'm not saying that, it was probably just some snoop who felt like being a tattle tale. The media didn't have to cover it though. If it was found out by other members of the congress, then they could have had private discussions, but publishing the story like this? There's no need. It just looks like smearing to me.
Again, realistically the media isn't going to keep quiet for any politician. And this is sort of news after all. I mean that is what the media does. Do they have a bias? Of course. But this is news that we, the citizens, should know about because it concerns our Congressmen.
Morally or realistically? I mean come on. You know how this country works. Things like this always get out.
I'm not saying that, it was probably just some snoop who felt like being a tattle tale. The media didn't have to cover it though. If it was found out by other members of the congress, then they could have had private discussions, but publishing the story like this? There's no need. It just looks like smearing to me.
Again, realistically the media isn't going to keep quiet for any politician. And this is sort of news after all. I mean that is what the media does. Do they have a bias? Of course. But this is news that we, the citizens, should know about because it concerns our Congressmen.
# posted by : 10/03/2006 7:36 PM
: 10/03/2006 7:36 PM
"this is news that we, the citizens, should know about because it concerns our Congressmen."
Why should someones personal life be known against their will if what they're doing is legal? Again, his personal and his political life are two different things. So yes, I have a moral objection to these things being made public against this guys will.
Why should someones personal life be known against their will if what they're doing is legal? Again, his personal and his political life are two different things. So yes, I have a moral objection to these things being made public against this guys will.
Maybe. But if he's doing it at home how do we know he's not doing it on work time. When you're a congressmen you have certain responsibilities. Plus he may have a right to privacy but the press is free too.
# posted by : 10/03/2006 9:38 PM
: 10/03/2006 9:38 PM
I realize there are no laws against the press, and I'm not saying there should be, but they should have a moral obligation not to publish things that ruin people like this. And just the fact that Foley did nothing illegal just makes it worse. The only reason a paper would publish this was for smearing. Just like when the papers made Rush Limbaugh's Viagra headline news. We're fighting two wars right now and all the press cares about is some gay congressman? Come on.
Because it's news. Bill Clinton technically didn't break any laws either (until he lied about it). The press talked about that for days on end too. It's a news story because it concerned what one of our congressmen did. I think every employeer has a right to know about his employee's background before hiring don't you? And we're just the same.
# posted by : 10/04/2006 7:03 AM
: 10/04/2006 7:03 AM
"I think every employeer has a right to know about his employee's background before hiring don't you? And we're just the same."
You mean like a resume? Sexual orientation doesn't go in a resume, Robby. Foley's gay, not a felon who's last job included answering 1-900 calls.
You mean like a resume? Sexual orientation doesn't go in a resume, Robby. Foley's gay, not a felon who's last job included answering 1-900 calls.
I don't think you have your facts straight on this one. According to you, the page was 18, it was consensual, and only occured the one time (or only with that page)? Where are you getting these "facts" from? According to what I've read everthing you're claiming is incorrect.
And how could you have already determined that he is innocent of breaking any laws?
From the Miami Herald: The FBI and the Florida Department of Law En- forcement are examining whether any of these communications or any other conduct by Mr. Foley violated the law. If they did, Mr. Foley should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. (10/3/2006)
I heard on the Randi Rhodes show that Congress will also be conducting an investigation. So, what's up with that -- if it is a fact that he's innocent of breaking any laws -- why are they investigating?
There's also the question of who knew what and when they knew it. I believe Hastert knew about this a lot earlier then he's admitting to -- and covered it up for political reasons.
From CBS News: Today, Republicans named a new candidate to replace Foley, but winning is a long shot. (10/2/2006)
Yeah!! Not that pages were sexually harrassed, but that this seat will go to a Democrat.
BTW Monica was 23 when she was involved in the "inappropriate relationship", The Paula Jones case was thrown out of court (it was during the deposition for this case that the alleged perjury took place), Mr. Clinton still denies committing perjury, and Mr. Clinton was never convicted of breaking any laws.
The Clinton Scandal in no way compares to sexually harrassing underage pages.
And how could you have already determined that he is innocent of breaking any laws?
From the Miami Herald: The FBI and the Florida Department of Law En- forcement are examining whether any of these communications or any other conduct by Mr. Foley violated the law. If they did, Mr. Foley should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. (10/3/2006)
I heard on the Randi Rhodes show that Congress will also be conducting an investigation. So, what's up with that -- if it is a fact that he's innocent of breaking any laws -- why are they investigating?
There's also the question of who knew what and when they knew it. I believe Hastert knew about this a lot earlier then he's admitting to -- and covered it up for political reasons.
From CBS News: Today, Republicans named a new candidate to replace Foley, but winning is a long shot. (10/2/2006)
Yeah!! Not that pages were sexually harrassed, but that this seat will go to a Democrat.
BTW Monica was 23 when she was involved in the "inappropriate relationship", The Paula Jones case was thrown out of court (it was during the deposition for this case that the alleged perjury took place), Mr. Clinton still denies committing perjury, and Mr. Clinton was never convicted of breaking any laws.
The Clinton Scandal in no way compares to sexually harrassing underage pages.
I assume you're talking to me. I could say the same of your argument. Arguing that sexual harrassment of underage pages is OK -- and asserting that no laws were broken when the investigation hasn't even begun -- while also claiming a consensual relationship between two adults is somehow worse...
Oh, and your defense of him has nothing to do with the guy being a Republican. Right.
Also: The Jones case lacked a key element of perjury. In order to be perjury, the statements have to be material. The judge ruled it immaterial and dismissed the case.
Which means there was no perjury.
Oh, and your defense of him has nothing to do with the guy being a Republican. Right.
Also: The Jones case lacked a key element of perjury. In order to be perjury, the statements have to be material. The judge ruled it immaterial and dismissed the case.
Which means there was no perjury.
"I don't think you have your facts straight on this one. According to you, the page was 18, it was consensual, and only occured the one time (or only with that page)? Where are you getting these "facts" from? According to what I've read everthing you're claiming is incorrect."
everything dervish? I never claimed there was only one conversation for one thing, but the one I read was consensual, and even if the kid was underage I still wouldn't call it illegal because what they discussed I wouldn't consider cyber sex.
"And how could you have already determined that he is innocent of breaking any laws?"
Because I believe in innocent until proven guilty unlike scumbags like you.
"I heard on the Randi Rhodes show that Congress will also be conducting an investigation. So, what's up with that -- if it is a fact that he's innocent of breaking any laws -- why are they investigating?"
because congress does that. It's all political posturing. It has almost nothing to do with the actual scandal.
"There's also the question of who knew what and when they knew it. I believe Hastert knew about this a lot earlier then he's admitting to -- and covered it up for political reasons."
Good for him. This is none of our business.
"Yeah!! Not that pages were sexually harrassed, but that this seat will go to a Democrat."
sexually harrassed? You really are a dumbass. Read the transcript. There's no harrassment.
"BTW Monica was 23 when she was involved in the "inappropriate relationship", The Paula Jones case was thrown out of court (it was during the deposition for this case that the alleged perjury took place), Mr. Clinton still denies committing perjury, and Mr. Clinton was never convicted of breaking any laws."
I agree. That's why I'm not a hypocrite like you.
"The Clinton Scandal in no way compares to sexually harrassing underage pages."
Yep, keep telling yourself that you Democratic fool...
everything dervish? I never claimed there was only one conversation for one thing, but the one I read was consensual, and even if the kid was underage I still wouldn't call it illegal because what they discussed I wouldn't consider cyber sex.
"And how could you have already determined that he is innocent of breaking any laws?"
Because I believe in innocent until proven guilty unlike scumbags like you.
"I heard on the Randi Rhodes show that Congress will also be conducting an investigation. So, what's up with that -- if it is a fact that he's innocent of breaking any laws -- why are they investigating?"
because congress does that. It's all political posturing. It has almost nothing to do with the actual scandal.
"There's also the question of who knew what and when they knew it. I believe Hastert knew about this a lot earlier then he's admitting to -- and covered it up for political reasons."
Good for him. This is none of our business.
"Yeah!! Not that pages were sexually harrassed, but that this seat will go to a Democrat."
sexually harrassed? You really are a dumbass. Read the transcript. There's no harrassment.
"BTW Monica was 23 when she was involved in the "inappropriate relationship", The Paula Jones case was thrown out of court (it was during the deposition for this case that the alleged perjury took place), Mr. Clinton still denies committing perjury, and Mr. Clinton was never convicted of breaking any laws."
I agree. That's why I'm not a hypocrite like you.
"The Clinton Scandal in no way compares to sexually harrassing underage pages."
Yep, keep telling yourself that you Democratic fool...
Dervish, you know nothing about me. Can I make it any more clear that I am not a Conservative? I don't have a legal objection to the Lewinsky scandal and I have no love for either party.
Cody O. said... everything dervish? I never claimed there was only one conversation for one thing, but the one I read was consensual, and even if the kid was underage I still wouldn't call it illegal because what they discussed I wouldn't consider cyber sex.
I didn't read about any page who was 18. Even if true, there were others who were not. So, yes, the jist of your argument is wrong
Cody O. said... Because I believe in innocent until proven guilty unlike scumbags like you.
Give me a break! You didn't say anything about him being "innocent until proven guilty" in your initial post. You claimed it was a FACT he was innocent. Big difference. BTW I also believe people are innocent until proven guilty -- that isn't going to change regardless of how many times you claim I don't.
Cody O. said... because congress does that. It's all political posturing. It has almost nothing to do with the actual scandal.
The FBI and the Florida Department of Law En- forcement are examining whether any of these communications or any other conduct by Mr. Foley violated the law.
Cody O. said... Good for him. This is none of our business.
Good for Hastert covering it up? It's none of our business that he allowed Foley to continue sexually harrassing underage pages???
I strongly disagree.
Cody O. Said... sexually harrassed? You really are a dumbass. Read the transcript. There's no harrassment.
What transcript? I don't see that you linked to any article. My statement was based on what I have read.
Cody O. Said... That's why I'm not a hypocrite like you.
What did I say that makes me a hypocrite?
Cody O. Said... Yep, keep telling yourself that you Democratic fool...
umm... OK. Except I don't consider myself a fool. I consider myself an informed voter.
Cody O. said... Dervish, you know nothing about me. Can I make it any more clear that I am not a Conservative?
So you've said. But how are you going to vote? "neolibertarian"? I don't think any of those are running.
IMO Libertarians are worse than Republicans.
I didn't read about any page who was 18. Even if true, there were others who were not. So, yes, the jist of your argument is wrong
Cody O. said... Because I believe in innocent until proven guilty unlike scumbags like you.
Give me a break! You didn't say anything about him being "innocent until proven guilty" in your initial post. You claimed it was a FACT he was innocent. Big difference. BTW I also believe people are innocent until proven guilty -- that isn't going to change regardless of how many times you claim I don't.
Cody O. said... because congress does that. It's all political posturing. It has almost nothing to do with the actual scandal.
The FBI and the Florida Department of Law En- forcement are examining whether any of these communications or any other conduct by Mr. Foley violated the law.
Cody O. said... Good for him. This is none of our business.
Good for Hastert covering it up? It's none of our business that he allowed Foley to continue sexually harrassing underage pages???
I strongly disagree.
Cody O. Said... sexually harrassed? You really are a dumbass. Read the transcript. There's no harrassment.
What transcript? I don't see that you linked to any article. My statement was based on what I have read.
Cody O. Said... That's why I'm not a hypocrite like you.
What did I say that makes me a hypocrite?
Cody O. Said... Yep, keep telling yourself that you Democratic fool...
umm... OK. Except I don't consider myself a fool. I consider myself an informed voter.
Cody O. said... Dervish, you know nothing about me. Can I make it any more clear that I am not a Conservative?
So you've said. But how are you going to vote? "neolibertarian"? I don't think any of those are running.
IMO Libertarians are worse than Republicans.
Oh just ignore him. I'm tired of repelling his stupid rants. I wish he'd get a life or something to keep him occupied rather than sit at his computer all day long typing all this crap. If it's too long and has a bunch of articles that are irrelevent I for one refuse even to respond. That's why he doesn't pull this crap when he debates on my blog.
# posted by : 10/04/2006 6:03 PM
: 10/04/2006 6:03 PM
You have a stong prejudice against reading, don't you?
Robert M. Said... That's why he doesn't pull this crap when he debates on my blog.
That's nonsense, of course. I didn't change my debating style for your blog. And I've never posted anything "irrelevent".
Robert M. Said... That's why he doesn't pull this crap when he debates on my blog.
That's nonsense, of course. I didn't change my debating style for your blog. And I've never posted anything "irrelevent".
You have a stong prejudice against reading, don't you?
Not in the least, I do however have a strong prejudice against bullshit.
That's nonsense, of course. I didn't change my debating style for your blog.
Really? Then why don't these kinds of comments appear on my blog very often?
And I've never posted anything "irrelevent".
That's for the readers of these blogs to decide, and I think we all know where they stand.
Not in the least, I do however have a strong prejudice against bullshit.
That's nonsense, of course. I didn't change my debating style for your blog.
Really? Then why don't these kinds of comments appear on my blog very often?
And I've never posted anything "irrelevent".
That's for the readers of these blogs to decide, and I think we all know where they stand.
# posted by : 10/04/2006 6:25 PM
: 10/04/2006 6:25 PM
Robert M. Said... Not in the least, I do however have a strong prejudice against bullshit.
So do I. Which is why I'm offended by most of what you write.
Robert M. Said... Really? Then why don't these kinds of comments appear on my blog very often?
I don't know what type of comment you're referring to.
Robert M. Said... That's for the readers of these blogs to decide, and I think we all know where they stand.
They all agree with you, right. My aren't conservative arrogant?
So do I. Which is why I'm offended by most of what you write.
Robert M. Said... Really? Then why don't these kinds of comments appear on my blog very often?
I don't know what type of comment you're referring to.
Robert M. Said... That's for the readers of these blogs to decide, and I think we all know where they stand.
They all agree with you, right. My aren't conservative arrogant?
W-Dervish said...
"What transcript? I don't see that you linked to any article. My statement was based on what I have read."
HERE
"IMO Libertarians are worse than Republicans."
Haha, great.
Post a Comment
"What transcript? I don't see that you linked to any article. My statement was based on what I have read."
HERE
"IMO Libertarians are worse than Republicans."
Haha, great.
<< Home
