Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (181500)	10/4/2006 2:09:24 PM
From: Ichy Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794285

If any member of Congress is targeting pages, girls or boys, I would rather err on the side of protecting the young person, not the politician or the party, but it's not the gayness alone that should cause the suspicion. One of the past cases was of a Congressman and a female page. Sexual predators come in all stripes. Gayness doesn't make anyone a predator; lack of self-control, selfish personal gratification, self -indulgence,-- all those ego words--do. Perhaps it is time to end the pages program and replace it with a program for people who are older and perhaps wiser. Or perhaps it is time that that a course was started telling the young people what they should be looking for and asking them to report any suspicious emails directly to a new member of the Pages Staff who works in the Sex Crimes department.

To: Rambi who wrote (181500)	10/4/2006 3:08:59 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794285

but the Republicans haven't hesitated to use these things politically either in the past. Republicans don't own the media. As hard as they tried, they couldn't even get Juanita Broaddrick on the front page. OTOH, the Democrat Media can shut down Washington with a Kinkos generated letter about what Bush might have done one day in 1973.

To: Rambi who wrote (181500)	10/6/2006 12:57:33 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794285

Why would FOley's gayness be the determining factor? If indeed, you are removing him because he is gay and for no other reason, you're right, you probably would be called a bigot. Or do you mean if you had some additional indication, such as the unsolicited contact, and regardless of sexual persuasion, you would act? If any member of Congress is targeting pages, girls or boys, I would rather err on the side of protecting the young person, not the politician or the party,... As I understand things, until the explicit IM's came about recently, the only things to make Foley suspect is 1) his being a suspected gay 2) his friendly communications with young people, both personally and via email. That's not much. Foley was targeting pages, we know now. But until you knew that from the IM's, all you had were non-sexual content communications. Course, if you'd known that Foley was gay and was also going out of his way to be friendly with teenage guys, it would be reasonable to suspect him of an ulterior motive (as you said erring on the side of protecting young people). But you'd be denounced as a bigot for that. Just as the Boy Scouts are under attack for not letting a young gay man in the NJ/NY area with no children in the Scouts to be a Scout leader. ...but it's not the gayness alone that should cause the suspicion. One of the past cases was of a Congressman and a female page. Sexual predators come in all stripes. Gayness doesn't make anyone a predator; lack of self-control, selfish personal gratification, self -indulgence,-- all those ego words--do No. I would accept that most gays are harmless as far as possible child molestation is concerned. But we do know that gays are only about 2% of the population but produce about 35% of the pedophiles and molesters. Also given that males do most molestion and gays are only 2% of the male population, molested girls should outnuber molested boys 49 to 1. I don't think the ratio is a lot smaller than that. There are claims out there that about as many boys as girls are molested. I don't know.