OK For Democrats to Have Sex with Minors

Rupert Pupkin · #1 10-05-2006, 01:20 AM

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.

dalakhani · #2 10-05-2006, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

#3 10-05-2006, 06:08 AM

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?!

Cajungator26 · #4 10-05-2006, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

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.

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

dalakhani · #5 10-05-2006, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

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.

GenuineRisk · #6 10-05-2006, 10:58 AM

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)

#7 10-05-2006, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

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???

Cajungator26 · #8 10-05-2006, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

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)

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

Downthestretch55 · #9 10-05-2006, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

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)

fair and balanced...times 3

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

dalakhani · #10 10-05-2006, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig2

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???

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.

Rupert Pupkin · #11 10-05-2006, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

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.

Rupert Pupkin · #12 10-05-2006, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

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.

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

Smooth Operator · #13 10-05-2006, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

fair and balanced...times 3

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

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

Rupert Pupkin · #14 10-05-2006, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smooth Operator

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.

repent · #15 10-05-2006, 04:31 PM

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

Downthestretch55 · #16 10-05-2006, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smooth Operator

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

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.

Downthestretch55 · #17 10-05-2006, 04:35 PM

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

Rupert Pupkin · #18 10-05-2006, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

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.

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

dalakhani · #19 10-05-2006, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

Downthestretch55 · #20 10-05-2006, 04:55 PM

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!