--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > > wrote: > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > It was YOU who first brought up the fact that Foley had greatly > > influenced the law in question... > > Yes, just as a side comment. And you immediately > launched into your standard "Clinton was worse" > song and dance, when none of this Foley mess has > a thing to do with Clinton. > > Nobody's disputing that it's a stupid law. Peter's > quite correct that it was a "show" law, something > for Republicans to brag about to their constituents > as exemplifying their commitment to children's > safety. > > The *irony* is that Foley, who wrote it, got caught > by it; and the Republican leadership, despite all > their boasting, ignored a very real threat to the > safety of children in the interests of protecting > one of their House seats. > > It's possibly the most egregious example yet of > Republican hypocrisy.
...which in your never-ending partisan writing style you were quick to point out... But you had kittens when I stuffed the Clinton hypocrisy into the debate. > > I reminded you that Clinton, too, > > had been the major factor behind a law that got HIM into trouble > > with Lewinski, but you snipped that part out, above. > > I left it in another response with more commentary. > > Not only did you state the law incorrectly, but there > are vastly more differences than similarities. Yes, and they are all -- embarassingly -- in Foley's favour. > > You thought you could find a way to inject yet > another slam at Clinton into the discussion, and > you bungled it badly. > We'll let the readers decide that for themselves (as long as you don't keep snipping them out without informing the reader that you're doing it). 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/
