Foley revisited?... not quite.

[crunch]

Sutton, 36, was accused of sexually groping the young man last year while the two shared a room at the start of the youth's weeklong stint in the Legislature. The South Dakota attorney general and other law enforcement agents investigated the allegations and made no arrests. But the Senate committee accused Sutton of sexual misconduct.

Austin Wiese, now 19, testified that Sutton, a longtime personal and family friend, touched his genitals through his shorts as the two slept in a king-size bed.

Sutton denied fondling the young man but acknowledged that he might have shifted in the bed and inadvertently touched him.

link

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Foley revisited?... not quite.

What exactly was he doing sleeping with a teenage boy? Not that there is anything wrong with that. Consenting adults and all.

 

[crunch]

Re: Foley revisited?... not quite.

Just trying to save the Taxpayer some money.

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Foley revisited?... not quite.

"What exactly was he doing sleeping with a teenage boy?"

Why he's a progressive of course!

 

[ricksrster]

Re: Foley revisited?... not quite.

Should we discriminate against a man whose sexual preference is young boys? Doesn't he have a right to his lifestyle like other perverts?

 

[crunch]

Re: Foley revisited?... not quite.

The Democrats certainly did with Foley, but this is one of their own so we won't hear a peep out of them.

 

[crunch]

Re: Foley revisited?... not quite.

Guess I was right... none of the outrage from the Libs on this board when one of their own tops Foley's transgressions. Where is all of the hate and bile now? Why isn’t there a rush to judgement before all of the facts are known?

Do any of you have a spine? Or are all of you just yes men for your party and to hell with your country? You guys are a disgusting.

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Foley revisited?... not quite.

The Democrats certainly did with Foley, but this is one of their own so we won't hear a peep out of them.

yup

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Foley revisited?... not quite.

Did he send any email?
Is there any hard:%:$d evidence?

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Foley revisited?... not quite.

Haut, other than he admitted it? I am not sure where you are going looking for HARD evidence? And maybe I don't want to.

Once again, what exactly was he doing sleeping with a 17 year old boy?

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Foley revisited?... not quite.

Stinks of something....
A 17 year old should know better , too...
I smell money afoot, somehow......???

 

[Link]

Re: Foley revisited?... not quite.

Stinks of something....
A 17 year old should know better , too...
I smell money afoot, somehow......???

Even though this is a disgusting subject.
And I don't know if I agree on the money thing.
As a 17 year old male? He should have had a fist full of knuckles.

Unless... dot dot dot. one never knows??

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Foley revisited?... not quite.

Exactly, I would never had slept in the same bed with any guy at 17.....
& anyone that suggested it would have received a punch upside the head......PERIOD!
Something ain't right there......
I think the young lad stands to see some financial gain somehow......

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Foley revisited?... not quite.

Notice how the tenure towards the VICTIM is somehow different than it has been in more publicized less aggregious Republican pervert? I can't understand why. :}

Not one time did I heard someone trying to blame the victim in the Foley case. Now any and all excuses are in play.

 

[RubberFrog]

Re: Foley revisited?... not quite.

where's willy and pw2? Why aren't they commenting?

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Foley revisited?... not quite.

Maybe because Foley was caught red-handed (so to speak)......:$
However, Sutton denies the scurrilous allegations......

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Foley revisited?... not quite.

No he doesn't. He admits to being in bed with a 17 year old boy. Don't change reality. Lying about it won't change the facts.

Again, what was he doing in bed with a 17 year old boy? And don't for a minute try to sell some kind of BS about facts about Foley. You were venomous from the point of rumor all the way threw to today. What exactly did Foley do that was worse than sleeping with and touching an underage boy? As usual, I don't remember one person rushing to the defense of Foley, yet not one liberal will drop the kool-aid long enough to admonish bad behavior that hinders their political agenda.

The lack of response to this sick ahole is truely disgusting.

Your concern for the safety of children is remorseful.

 

[crunch]

Re: Foley revisited?... not quite.

Hey, don't get all twisted out of shape, Foley was before the election and useful to the Democrats at that time.

This pervert, who didn't do e-mails but physically slept with the boy, will get off with a slap on the wrist, and nobody the wiser, no out cry from the moral majority... just immoral justifications.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Foley revisited?... not quite.

I expect this type of self serving behavior from politicians, but when members of society are willing to ignore a crime against a child because it is inconvenient to their political desires it doesn't bode well for the quality of the individual or our society. I expect better from people.

Silly me...

 

[crunch]

Re: Foley revisited?... not quite.

Silly you. :'(