--- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Peter <drpetersutphen@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- shempmcgurk <shempmcgurk@> wrote: > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" > > > <jstein@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], > > > "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], > > > "authfriend" <jstein@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], > > > "shempmcgurk" > > > > <shempmcgurk@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > Kinda like Clinton who pushed through the > > > law that required > > > > > > > defendents in civil sexual harrassment suits > > > to answer > > > > questions > > > > > > > about previous sexual harrassment > > > cases...which is the ONLY > > > > > reason > > > > > > > he was asked the question about Lewinski in > > > the Paula Jones > > > > > > > deposition (which is what he lied about). > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, no, not very much like Clinton. Can you > > > > > > tell us why, Shemp? > > > > > > > > > > Well, you're right. > > > > > > > > > > Clinton had sex with an employee; Foley didn't. > > > > > > > > Nope, wrong answer. Try again. > > > > > > It may be YOUR wrong answer but it's still factual. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another similarity: both Clinton and Foley > > > had "phone" sex > > > > > (well, > > > > > > > in Foley's case it was instant messaging > > > sex) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, the difference between Foley and > > > > > > > Clinton is that Clinton actually had sex > > > > > > > with the underling in question; Foley did > > > > > > > not. > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, there's a much more significant > > > > > > difference. Can you tell us what it is, Shemp? > > > > > > > > > > You're right; Clinton lied about it; Foley > > > > > didn't. > > > > > > > > Nope, wrong answer. Try again. > > > > > > It may be YOUR wrong answer but it's still factual. > > > > Shemp, why are you avoiding stating that Foley was > > pursuing a minor? Clinton's sex with Monica was > > inappropriate, unethical, but legal because she was > > not a minor. Foley's sexual emails to the page are > > inappropriate, unethical AND illegal. > > But that's the whole point of what I'm trying to bring up! > > Because the age of consent in DC is 16, had Foley had > consentual sex with the 17-year-old minor instead of IM > conversations he would have been in less trouble!
And if he'd had sexual IM conversations with a 22-year- old former page, he wouldn't have been in any trouble at all. (Hint: That's how old Monica was when she began the affair with Clinton.) Your point about the law is quite correct, Shemp, but it has nothing to do with the Clinton/Monica situation. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
