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

whorstman · #10 10-09-2006, 07:13 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)

That's funny:

Georgia: 18 generally, 15 with parental consent, 16 without parental consent if pregnant

Yeee - Hawwww!! By golly I'ma marry that gurl as soon as she has her sweet 16!!

Rupert Pupkin · #11 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.

Rupert Pupkin · #12 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 · #13 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.

Rupert Pupkin · #14 10-05-2006, 05:09 PM

Quote:

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.

Cajungator26 · #15 10-05-2006, 05:19 PM

Quote:

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.

dalakhani · #16 10-05-2006, 05:49 PM

Quote:

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 · #17 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!

Rupert Pupkin · #18 10-05-2006, 05:20 PM

Quote:

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 · #19 10-05-2006, 05:34 PM

Quote:

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).

#20 10-05-2006, 05:38 PM

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.