I think Foley should be required to disclose name of his abuser.
Firstly, I don't believe the story for a minute since it's waaaay toooo convenient. However if he was himself victimized as a child he has a moral obligation to name the offender. It is outrageous in my opinion that he is shielding the offender's identity.
11. Okay, as soon as they find any dead person that they can tie
to an established religion, they'll name 'em.
I wasn't picking on catholics. I was one. It's just that shitloads of people here told me he use to attend Mass. So thinking from point a to b, I figured it would have to be a catholic he'd pin it on.
12. And I think that is exactly what repukes are counting on people to do.
IMO repukes are betting that people will just assume as you did it was a priest because Foley was raised Catholic. By betting that people will make this assumption, repukes can be confident that soon people believe this to be a fact. Can you see how devious this is? Repukes simply make an innuendo that Foley was abused by a clergyman and people unthinkingly fill in the blanks.
Repukes don't need any facts to corroborate the story because people will forget that neither the offender's religion nor his name was never mentioned.
8. I don't care if stays in the facility till hell freezes over but he
should be required to name name's, not only to substantiate his story but to enable other children who might have been victimized by the same man to come forward.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
