tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post5039426699260634927..comments2020-04-11T03:30:02.282-05:00Gary R. Welshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-71651686414477935342008-10-15T07:06:00.000-05:002008-10-15T07:06:00.000-05:00I'm fairly certain that at least one of the pages that received sexually explicit messages was 16 years old, which makes him a minor. Again, there's hypocrisy in both parties, but my gut tells me more people are offended when adult men prey on 16-year old children. I can't imagine that my writing style is familiar to you because I don't recall meeting you during the course of court proceedings, and I don't blog.legaldivahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16516493702692072675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-74690189321940626342008-10-14T21:39:00.000-05:002008-10-14T21:39:00.000-05:00Legaldiva obviously doesn't practice employment law. Foley did not hire the 18-year-old page in question (which the last I checked made the guy above the age of consent). The page did not work for Foley. Foley had no responsibility for supervising his work. And Foley had no authority to fire him. Moreover, Foley is not a pedophile. A pedophile, legaldiva, would be Obama's childhood mentor, Frank Davis, who admitted to having sex with a 13-year-old. And does anyone else find legaldiva's writing style a bit familiar or is it just me?Gary R. Welshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-54124011139950495882008-10-14T20:30:00.000-05:002008-10-14T20:30:00.000-05:00Not to split hairs here, but part of the reason nothing illegal happened is because there was an intervention. One could argue, albeit loosely, that Foley engaged in attempted child solicitation...just a thought. Either way, I think the public is overwhelmingly less supportive of men that attempt to have intimate relations with minors (criminal or not) than they are of men that have extramarital affairs. In fact, aside from fellow pedophiles, I can't fathom that folks find Foley's behavior acceptable. Now, is Mahoney a pillar of morality...absolutely not, but that does not in any way, shape, or form mitigate Foley's behavior.legaldivahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16516493702692072675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1719669546358437142008-10-14T20:20:00.000-05:002008-10-14T20:20:00.000-05:00Foley broke no laws. He never had sex with anyone. He sent some stupid, inappropriate e-mails. He's guilty of being stupid. This guy Mahoney gives a taxpayer-paid job to a woman because she is having sex with him and then fires her when she stops having sex with him. I think a law may have been broken there. What he did is worse from the public's standpoint than Foley. At least Foley had the decency to resign his seat. This arrogant Mahoney has the audacity to say that it was simply a private matter. Not hardly. He made Foley's e-mails with pages the public's business. He damn well better understand that it's the people's business when he's using our money to pay women for sexual favors.Gary R. Welshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-35533434690632157222008-10-14T20:04:00.000-05:002008-10-14T20:04:00.000-05:00I'm a fan of creative analogies, but it's a bit of a stretch to compare an inappropriate relationship with a minor to a consensual adult relationship. The reality is BOTH parties engage in hypocrisy. Arguments to the contrary are not rooted in reality.legaldivahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16516493702692072675noreply@blogger.com