OK For Democrats to Have Sex with Minors

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

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...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

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

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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

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...

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.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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?

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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 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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

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!

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?

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

[Danzig]

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?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

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.

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.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

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.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

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?

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!

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by pgardn

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.

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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

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).

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?

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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?

[Downthestretch55]

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

[mclem10011]

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!

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by mclem10011

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

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

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?

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.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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?