OK For Democrats to Have Sex with Minors
 

It's funny how all these democrats in congress are so outraged about Foley. When Representative Gerry Studds who is a democrat was caught having sex with a 17-year old boy, the democrats didn't even ask him to resign. In fact, he served in Congress for an additional 10 years after he got caught. He actually had sex with a 17-year old boy and he refused to apologize. Foley, on the other hand, did not have sex with any minors. Don't get me wrong, I'm not excusing Foley. There is no excuse for his despicable behavior. I'm just saying that it is amazing that when the democrat had sex with 17-year old boy, that he wasn't even asked to resign and democrats defended him. I don't hear any republicans defending Foley.

Rupert-

you are starting to embarass yourself and it is getting patently clear that you regurgitate Fox news propaganda.

First of all, you have to go back to 1983? Hey, pal, its 2006. And if you are going to go back to 1983, at least get your facts straight. Studds DIDNT BREAK THE LAW. Why should he have been asked to resign? The boy was 17 and in 1983 that was legal.

You also fail to bring up the fact that in the SAME YEAR a republican got busted doing the same thing. Yes, Crane from Illinois if you want to look it up.

The difference in the cases is that the LAW was BROKEN. The difference in this case is that FOLEY broke the law and HASTERT covered it up. The ironic part is that Foley broke the laws that he helped put into place.

Sorry buddy, cant spin this one.

as i've said before, two wrongs don't make a right. so a rep can do something wrong because a dem did?? where will we all end up with that kind of logic?!

True, but regardless of how you look at it, both cases are disgusting. ;)

True. I just think it is interesting that a case from 23 years ago was brought up to try to spin this situation especially considering that no law was broken in the case 23 years ago.

Not to mention that on Bill O'Reilly's show, they "mistakenly" listed Foley as a Democrat. After running it, they later "corrected" it by taking the graphic away entirely (i.e., not correcting it and properly listing him as a Republican). Rupert, I beg of you, please go somewhere, anywhere else for your news.

Icky, yes (the 1983 thing), but as Dalakhani said, not illegal then. And in many states, they clearly still think it's okay to have sex before 18 as long as you have a wedding ring-- check out the minimum marriage ages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age

So my question, if a 40 year-old guy marries a 13-year old girl, but doesn't sleep with her until their married, is it still icky, even though it's legal?

(That's apropos of nothing; I'm just curious what y'all think)

what's the 'age of consent' with all the pages? would it matter if foley was a woman rather than a man (yes imo)? were laws broken? or is it an ethics question???

Yeah, I find it disgusting, but that was common practice in the old days.

fair and balanced...times 3

http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1159977515.shtml

Laws were definitely broken. Using a computer to set up a meeting for sex with a minor is against the law. The inappropriate language and conversation in the IM's were definitely against the law.

I didn't get the stroy from Fox News. A friend told me about it and I did a quick search on-line.

What was the legal age in 1983?

Regarding Fox News, I challenge any of you to watch the first 10 minutes of Fox News tonight and tell me one thing that they say which you think is inaccurate or inappropriate. If you watch the first 10 minutes of the actual newscast, you won't see any huge difference between Fox and the other networks. I watch the news on several different channnels. You will pretty much see the same headline stories on each channel. You guys are dreaming if you want to believe the liberal propaganda that claims that Fox is somehow not a good news station. The newspeople at Fox are excellent. Let's take Chris Wallace for example. Wallace was with ABC news for 25 years before he went to Fox. His father is the liberal reporter Mike Wallace.

You guys aren't kidding anyone about Fox. Fox may be slightly right of center just as the other stations are slightly left of center. Overall, you get the same quality of news from Fox as any other channel. I actually prefer Fox because they are more straight-forward. You don't the political correctness from them.

For your information, the famous Foley exchanges were with an 18 year old.

Lol…..yeah, "fair and balanced"…..but not necessarily accurate.


95 % of the zombies that watch Fox probably think the guy is a Dem now…..lol

That's ridiculous. Every channel has made similar mistakes over the years.

By the way, I didn't realize that in many states today, the age of consent is 16 and not 18. I believe that it is 16 in Washington D.C.

this whole thing is stupid and not all that interesting, but I do have a question.

the legal age of consent is different is different in most states.
so if I understand it correctly, a 17YO can have sex with a 24YO in one state, but not in another.

I live in TX. does anyone know if I can do a 17YO?
thanks.

Repent

LOL! That came before Fox reported that the Dem leaders weren't doing anything. Yup! Democratic leaders! The story has been pulled so I can't give you the link.
Saying Foley was a Dem should give enough pause to grant credibility to Fox "news"...times three.
UHHH...we have a problem, Rupert.

I forgot to mention that this is all a "left wing conspiracy" perpetrated by the "media". Yeah, right!

I think it's still legal today. I belive the age of consent in Washigton DC is 16 years old.

Some of the communication was done in florida where the consent law is 18.

Classic stuff!
Let's talk about "age of consent".
Let's talk about Fox "news".
Let's talk about anything besides the very real issue. Foley, his 100K hush money to Reynolds, and Hastert's cover-up for the past three years.
Nah...let's blame it on Bill Clinton.
After all, he was the one that put immoral thoughts into Foley's mind.
Hang Willie! He's the one that's really responsible.
If you don't think so, find someone else to hang the "avoid" tag on.
Isn't this a nice diversion from the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Yes, nice.
Go Fox!

Which Fox show's 10 minutes? The 7pm est show? I may take you up on that some day.

I don't watch a ton of news shows and prefer Lehrer/PBS.

The news is the news. The difference between networks is the "analysis" portion of their shows. This is where CNN will put on any former Bush Administration staffer who will say anything to sell a book. This is also where Fox will put on any old Republican who will, apparently, say anything for the sake of airtime (Am I wrong or have I actually seen Alexander Haig on Fox recently?).

The worst way I could imagine spending my time would be to watch any of the "News Analysis" shows like OReilly, Hannity, LArry King, etc...

So you're really nailing him on a technicality then. You say that the guy back in the 1980s should not have resigned because he didn't break the law. What he did was worse than what Foley did. Yet you act like what Foley did was worse just because it might have been a technical violation of the law if he e-mailed someone out of state. Which of the e-mails even broke the law? If the e-mail was done from Washignton DC to someone in Washington DC, then it is legal. His most explicit e-mails were to a guy that was 18 years old so that is legal. That means that many if not most of the e-mails were legal.

My point is that there is a lot of hypocrisy out there. I don't defend Foley or Studds.

I wasn't talking about shows like O'Reilly. I was talking about the actual newscast.

With regard to O'Reilly, he is certainly conseravtive on most issues. But at least he gives the other side a fair voice. With regard to the recent Clinton controversy, O'Reilly had Paul Begala and James Carville on the show.

Is that before or after he interrupts them?

I thought that in the state of Florida (I live here), legal age for a MALE was 16. ??? I'm not sure why everyone keeps bringing up the age of 18.

You are the guys that brought up age. Dalakhani said that what Studds did was alright because the 17 year old was of legal age.

By the way, you are a guy that claims you belive that people are innocent until proven guilty. Coincidentally, you only believe in this concept if you like the person who is accused. If you don't, then you throw the concept out the window. You say that Foley gave Reynolds $100k in hush money? Has that been proven in a court of law? What happened to your belief in the innocent until proven guilty concept?

Hey Rupert, leave me totally out of this...and good luck to you and those that you believe in.
I didn't resign and hide in a rehab so my lawyer could make excuses for me.
I didn't make a 100K "contribution" to the Repub party fund boss.
I didn't script any "news" stories for Fox.
I'm totally innocent. Nor am I responsible or accountable.
Though, I'm guessing that with all the spinning that's going on, somebody is.
Maybe more.
So, is the issue "age of consent"?
That's avoidance.
Blaming the "media" for reporting?
That's more avoidance.
Will answers be presented to the "real" questions be presented before the November elections?
I sure hope so, because I've always thought that the Republicans stood on "truth".
err...uh... How did we get into Iraq?
Oh! WMD, Regime change, democracy and "stable government"...
Keep believing. (notice the middle syllable).

There is a possibility that both Republicans and Democrats knew of Foley's problems with young pages. ANd part of the problem is that he is a boss of sorts. When one "harasses" pages that are underlings... thats not good. Position of power, taking advantage, thats a problem.

Nancy Pellosi(D) might be in trouble because she might have known about this a good deal earlier and held off closer to election time. Republicans might have a problem because of trying to cover it up, or not addressing an obvious problem.

Should be interesting. The sex and age thing is a side point at this moment. The position of power thing is clearly the First problem. Maybe more will come, maybe not. In any event, not good timing for Republicans.

Oh yes. It becomes MORE of a Republican problem because of the stand against same sex advances.

the reason why i asked if laws were broken....the only law i've seen that they could say he broke is if he actually solicited sex from a minor. not sure at this point from all i've seen (and i don't know that i've seen all the email and im exchanges) that he actually solicited sex from a minor. if he did, obviously he should be prosecuted to the full extent, regardless of his former place of employment.

however, the others involved such as hastert are facing serious inquiries into ethics violations, as they should. the cover up i feel will end up the much larger story due to the thought at THIS POINT that actual solicitation may not have occurred. nasty, disgusting and nauseating emails, yes....but being disgusting isn't illegal. if he crossed the line, he should be prosecuted.
i have to say, had my child been propositioned, i'd have called the police immediately. why did this never happen?? why did not one page or his family make that call?

The state law does not differentiate between male and female. The law says that the consenting age is 16 IF the other adult is less than 24 years old and 18 if older. However, it is not illegal if the minor is MARRIED to the adult.

What I find laughable here is that some of the LAWS that were BROKEN were helped put in place by FOLEY.

No technicality here. He broke the law and Hastert covered it up.

Unless of course, you find it okay that a 16 year old boy is getting asked by his boss to measure his penis for him.

Good one Danzig!
I never thought of that! You really think "outside the box"!!!!
It's the parents' fault. They should be made to answer.
I can't wait until they're cross examined.
"Why didn't you call the police?"
"It's all your fault for not doing so!"
"You parents don't care about your children, now, do you?"

So creative!

Pg,
There is NO WAY the Foley stuff was not common knowledge in DC. No way. Congress, especially the House, is a lot like a small college town. It's just not possible this wasn't commonly known. Surely the timing is politically motivated. Why wouldn't it be?

And I do not care what the legal age of consent is. 16, 17, whatever. These pages are still children and they are faced with incredible pressure to impress and many would find it difficult to rebuke inappropriate advances. Not all 16-17 year olds are incapable of handling themselves, but surely many of them are.

I'm not defending Foley. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy. Like I said, it's funny how one day you say that you believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, but then when a republican is accused of something, you say consider them guilty immediately. You say that Foley paid this guy $100k in hush money as if this has been proven in a court of law. Yet when the police have mountains of evidence against Kieran Fallon, you say that you think he is innocent because you believe in the concept of innocent until proven guitly. What am I missing? Why would you say that Foley paid a guy $100k in hush money before it has been proven?

Rupert,
I'll give you that. He's totally innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
That's the American way.
This comes from someone that can be locked up as an "enemy combatant" if decreed so by the law that was signed this week by our beloved president.
Will I be locked up while awaiting trial?
Heck, I haven't even left the country.
So, am I innocent until I can prove so? Or is there a burden of proof to find my guilt?
We live in a topsie turvey world, up is down, truth is a lie, the media is to blame for the actions of leaders, and parents are to blame for the im's of a pedophile.
Who'd a thunk it?
Orwell?

I know some here hate it any time I post something from this site.
Read it first, bash me later.
You might learn something in between.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1005-34.htm

Let's be clear.......
 

Wrong is wrong! No matter what political party you care to associate with, any adult who preys on a child to get his or her rocks off, should be stuffed under the jail!

mclem,
There's a whole lot more wrong than most would even consider.
Our Constitution has been gutted. Yes, gutted!
American citizens can now be held, for an unlimited time period.
It is now the "law".
The consolidation of power is now held by the one that accuses others of being "fascists".
Read it. Cry later.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/Bush.Mili...sions%20act%22

People are often times held in jail before trial. OJ was in jail until the trial ended. Even for minor offenses, you may be held in jail unless you post bond.

OJ should have gone to a rehab. But that's a completely different case.
So, answer this...if you're accused (see above), and you're not really an "enemy combatant"...do you still have to sit in a cell if you can't raise bond?