What an incredible asshole...

There has arisen in the past several days an outcry over what is generally characterized as collateral liability/culpability of various Republicans, namely Hastert and Reynolds.

It sets me wondering where the dialogue should begin and/or end, as well as discussions of context, offense-wise.

I have heard many comments from many pundits, and, apart from strictly rhetorical offerings, I have heard right-leaning statements bemoaning Foley's actions (as well as those of the above-mentioned names), and calling for a wholesale "heads on platters" response.

There then follows the context which is compelled by political imperative; the various other incidents which have occurred over the years, several of them involving Democrats, most infamously Gerry Studds, Barney Frank, and Bill Clinton.

These extended discussions, which, let's face it, are part-and-parcel of the ongoing media dissection, prompt indignant cries of "FOUL!" from Democrats who seem to prefer that historical context not be taken into account.

Given the deplorable conduct of several Republicans vis a vis the Foley affair, what sort of propriety should apply here?

Should all the other stuff be out-of-bounds?

Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tempestv

the age in DC wouldn't seem to matter, considering the kid was somewhere else from what I can get out of the artical. what would matter is the age of consent where the kid was.

---

Ok yes it matter where the act takes place. I was just saying that basically a 25 year-old fucking a consenting 16 year-old is in trouble in DC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

There has arisen in the past several days an outcry over what is generally characterized as collateral liability/culpability of various Republicans, namely Hastert and Reynolds.

It sets me wondering where the dialogue should begin and/or end, as well as discussions of context, offense-wise.

I have heard many comments from many pundits, and, apart from strictly rhetorical offerings, I have heard right-leaning statements bemoaning Foley's actions (as well as those of the above-mentioned names), and calling for a wholesale "heads on platters" response.

There then follows the context which is compelled by political imperative; the various other incidents which have occurred over the years, several of them involving Democrats, most infamously Gerry Studds, Barney Frank, and Bill Clinton.

These extended discussions, which, let's face it, are part-and-parcel of the ongoing media dissection, prompt indignant cries of "FOUL!" from Democrats who seem to prefer that historical context not be taken into account.

Given the deplorable conduct of several Republicans vis a vis the Foley affair, what sort of propriety should apply here?

Should all the other stuff be out-of-bounds?

Why?

---

Can tell me wtf j2 is talking about in one sentence please.:ermm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tempestv

this comes from ageofconsent.com page on Washington DC law
CHAPTER 41 SEXUAL ABUSE § 22-4101. Definitions.

(3) "Child" means a person who has not yet attained the age of 16 years.

§ 22-4108. First degree child sexual abuse.
Whoever, being at least 4 years older than a child, engages in a sexual act with that child or causes that child to engage in a sexual act shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life and, in addition, may be fined an amount not to exceed $250,000. (May 23, 1995, D.C. Law 10-257, § 207, 42 DCR 53.)

§ 22-4109. Second degree child sexual abuse.
Whoever, being at least 4 years older than a child, engages in sexual contact with that child or causes that child to engage in sexual contact shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years and, in addition, may be fined in an amount not to exceed
$100,000. (May 23, 1995, D.C. Law 10-257, § 208, 42 DCR 53.)

from how I read that, the law says that in a sexual relationship that involves a child, the older person must be within 4 years of the age of the child. however, the law doesn't apply after the younger person is over 16, because they are no longer a child. am I reading it wrong?

---

A 16 year-old is not an adult.

A 25 year-old banging a 17 year-old is still in trouble.

That website smells of bull:shit:.

edit: I love this one

Quote:

---

If any unmarried man or woman commits fornication in the District, each shall be fined not more than $300 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.

---

Quote:

---

According to the CREW posting, the boy e-mailed a colleague in Alexander's office about Foley's e-mails, saying, "This freaked me out." On the request for a photo, the boy repeated the word "sick" 13 times.

---

it doesn't sound like this kid was exactly consenting, which raises this to a whole new level.

@busy, any idea what the actual text of the rules concerning this are? and I thought the law on un married fornication was good too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Can tell me wtf j2 is talking about in one sentence please.:ermm:

---

he is saying that the Democrats are crying foul about the coverup and are forgeting that Democrat politicians have done similar things in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tempestv

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Can tell me wtf j2 is talking about in one sentence please.:ermm:

---

he is saying that the Democrats are crying foul about the coverup and are forgeting that Democrat politicians have done similar things in the past.

---

:glag:

What similar things?

Btw, can you translate and truncate er....trunslate his long postings in the future.

Thanks in advance.:happy:

Also, to bring up that politicians coverup shit is a bubblefuck and Captain Obvious. However, when caught, the proper response isn't "Well I may be coverupper but so are you."

"The point is YOU covered up a gay pedophiliack, dipshit."


Ahhh....I am recalling the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal and the importance placed on it by the Republicans.:rolleyes:

Gerry Studs - consensual sex with 17-year old page
Barney Frank - had some hooker he hired run a prostitution ring out of his house when he wasn't home? :blink:
Bill Clinton - consensual sex with 22-year old intern

/saved the googling

:shuriken:

also that Gerry Studds, Barney Frank, and Bill Clinton weren't doing unethical things with nonconsenting juvenilles.

Gerry Studds had a relationship with a legal age male page
Barney Frank is openly gay and had a relationship with a male prostitute, who started running a prositution ring out of Frank's apartment, which caused the end of the realtionship

Bill Clinton got BJ's from an office intern

damn, MN beat me to it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagicNakor

Gerry Studs - consensual sex with 17-year old page
Barney Frank - had some hooker he hired run a prostitution ring out of his house when he wasn't home? :blink:
Bill Clinton - consensual sex with 22-year old intern

/saved the googling

:shuriken:

---

Ok now you and Tempestv are hereby annointed j2 trunslators.

Thanks for that.