Republican Congressman Sends Sex Messages to Underage Boys

People discuss those things for historical reasons - which is why you see them on things like the history channel.

Tell me, have you waxed poetic about the history of Gerry Studds before? Please find some posts for me pre-dating the Mark Foley scandal indicating that you were concerned about this past episode - otherwise it looks like you're taking your marching orders from Sean Hannity (who justified it because it was "pretty recent" - ha ha ha) to carry water for a child molester and those who covered up his crimes. how this helps you I have no idea.

 

For the record that was a reference to Studds, who died in 2006 at about age 69, who was censured in 1983 at about age 46 and who had pulled his seduction 10 years earlier at about age 36.

 

So now that Gerry Studds has died and is being eulogized we shouldn't be so hard on Foley? Crikey the man just died, he did a horrible thing but lets show a little respect.

 

I'm not sure who you see saying that. I've said all along that Foley needs to be prosecuted, but for Foley to be made out a beast for texting sexual messages while Studds who plied an intern with alcohol and seduced him is made out to be some pioneer is just ludicrous.

 

didn't Foley seduce and offer liquor to an intern thru IM as well?

they're both sexual beasts/predators.. why do you try to make Foley less of a beast?

 

While I don't approve of either person, the facts are the facts:

Studds' intern was 17 years old at the time of the seduction.

Age of consent in the District of Columbia is 17 years old.

Foley's intern was 16 when the messages began.

Case closed. Comparing the two is apples and oranges vis a vis the law.

 

The age of consent in D.C. is 16. There might have been nothing illegal about Foley having sex with his pages (so long as he didn't use his influence to coerce them). Foley is being charged with a federal crime relating to seducing minors over the Internet where a minor is defined as under 17.

 

Why the hell are you guys even debating "which one is worse?" Morally, legally, whatever?

The Republican coverup is what has been in the headlines all this time. The vilification of Foley is a molehill in comparison. Foley has resigned, he is being investigated, and if he needs to be indicted or arrested or whatever, he will.

The real issue is the repub coverup.

 

You got me. I had a Sean Hannity implant installed about a month ago.

You cannot tell me people have not been comparing the current war to the Vietnam War.

I don't understand why you have a problem seeing that I'm saying BOTH people are in the wrong. I honestly cannot see why you fail to understand this. When have I defended Foley? I have done no such thing.

My problem is with the double standard of one being a "pioneer." I have never defended a cover-up or claimed that one did not exist. You are letting your obvious disdain for anything not resembling your own viewpoint cloud your reasoning.

 

pioneer means first right? studds was the first openly gay member of congress so he was a pioneer for that matter..

if neil armstrong blew up a building that still does not change the fact that he was the first man on the moon..

 

But wasn't he only openly gay because of what happened? An honest question because that's what I've heard but, as I've stated, being a mere toddler at the time this hapened I can't say for sure.

 

Why does this mattered?

 

Sort of shades the "Pioneer" label a bit.

This argument is nothing but a distraction... Pay attention to what matters.

 

one could very easily say the same about you.

your attitude is very typical of bush and bush supporters. they like to play the "blame game". "but he did it!"

and north korea getting nukes was clintons fault
and 9/11 was clintons fault

 

There is no wiggle room legally for Foley, period.

Don't you find it kind of ironic that Studds got a censure and a re-election while Foley is forced to resign in shame for only wanting to do what Studds actually did?

 

so why is it illegal/a crime if sending sexual messages is just "wanting"?

its clear you don't mind some adult REPEATEDLY for five years making sexual advances and offering alcohol to DIFFERENT minors as long its just through IM because its just "wanting"..

 

Again, what Studds did all those years ago has no bearing on Foley's deeds. Apparently Studds did it once, with FOley it was an ongoing thing that has lasted for years and years.

The bigger problem is the fact that nobody in leadership did anything about it even though they knew.

 

People are talking about Studds as a pioneer because he just died. You do understand that in general people like to put a positive spin on someone's life when they die?

 

I have done nothing to support Bush recently. I have said nothing of North Korea. I have said nothing blaming Clinton for 9/11.

What I hate is hypocrisy in all its forms. I hate it when Republicans do it and when Democrats do it. Most importantly, I hate the rampant arrogance of those who claim that their way is the only way to think. I cannot stand those on the far-left who claim to have a monopoly on truth. More importantly I find it odd that it's OK to compare the current war to a war fought more than three decades ago but not OK to compare a situation to something that happened two decades ago because it's too far in the past.

I have also done nothing but try to explain why I feel there is a bit of a double standard. I have done nothing to excuse Foley's behavior. Don't confuse the opinions of others with my own.

 

Sort of like the "positive spin" put on Ken Lay? I don't believe we should speak nice of someone just because they've recently passed.

Ken Lay deserved every bit of bad press he received at his death. Studds deserves at least a discussion of his improper acts especially considering the current similar situation.