Printable View
So j2 brought up stuff (spin?) that has no parallel with the topic (well...uh..oh well) or at the very most is questionable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempestv
OIC.
(that Barney Frank stuff is very questionable, that fat fuck is openly gay? I didn't know, I only saw him on Bill Maher:idunno:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_FrankQuote:
Originally Posted by Barney Frank
I didn't catch this before, but he used his power to fix 33 parking tickets for his boyfriend
No they aren't. You're talking pish. Again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™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 Tempestv
Oh and forgive me for being pedantic, however the artcle didn't actually say he fucked anyone.
Doesn't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
What matters is, the identified case involved a 16-year-old; proof of a sex act is not necessary.
Foley is a Republican, and Republican trespass requires different handling.
Odd, too, the sentiment expressed on FoxNews by Bob Beckel, Democrat pundit.
Relative to the Foley deal, he said something to the effect of, "Everyone knew Foley was gay, and they should have expected this to happen".
He might have been more on-point had he said, "gay Republican", as he does not normally conclude so presumptively when speaking of your average gay-on-the-street, I'm sure. ;)
Anyone that has seen the program "to catch a predator" will know there is one statement that with very little exception they all say.
"I have never done anything like this before, it's my first time and I had no intention of having sex"......despite the 12 pack of beer, condoms and lube gel they all seem to have brought along.
Perhaps instead of justifying a difference because "there is no proof he had sex" we should be grateful he was exposed in time before he did.
Foley being a republican is beside the point and really of little consequence. The political problem is the way the republican leadership appear to have handled it.
apparently these emails were sent in august of 2005, which means that it was kept secret for more than a year. the guy that is the chairman of the page program said he learned what happened in late of 2005, so why did most of a year pass before they became public? was this guy still allowed near the highschool students working as pages from when the allegations were made onward?
Let me ask you precisely who is not grateful; in other words, who you have heard say, "Gee whiz, I wish he hadn't been caught?"Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
As to the Republican bit, I have a very distinct memory of your having "endicted" Karl Rove over the Wilson/Plame deal.
Apparently Mr. Fitzgerald disagreed with you, huh?
The comparison with what the sickos say on to catch a predator (obviously a lie given the beer etc.) was made because of the question about the context with Stubbs (the other two have no bearing whatsoever). Stubbs did have sex, Foley apparently didn't. So I simply pointed out that it's lucky he was caught before and any difference between those that have had sex and those that haven't yet in such cases is irrelevant.
You know full well that right wingers have been trying to make the difference to make it seem democrats are worse, look here to see them blame everyone but themselves
We punish terrorists with the same standard if they manage to carry out their plans or were foiled.
The question is:
Did the Republican leadership (those actually in charge and responsible for running things) do their job?
If the response is "democrats democrats democrats" then the question is being avoided instead of answered.
What democrats, republicans or independents did or did not do in other past cases has no bearing on what someone does now, and does not excuse.
If you think it does then try using it as a defense in court.
On rove. All I did was point out what he admitted to. His own words. He did what he did. Just because the law is written in such a way as to make it almost impossible to convict anyone, or that Fitz decided not to proceed doesn't mean he didn't do what he did.
If you shoot someone and it is decided you didn't mean to do it or that you simply didn't break a law, that doesn't mean that you didn't shoot someone.
This says Hastert knew about Foley going after male pages three years ago
If so, this is a pretty big screwup
On the assumption that the 16 year old was below the age of consent. If he was allowed to consent to sexual intercourse then the other chap is guilty of no more than being a pest and cries of paedophile are inappropriate. If the 16 year old is under the age of consent that's a different matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Doesn't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
What matters is, the identified case involved a 16-year-old; proof of a sex act is not necessary.
Oh and like I said before I think the reaction would be entirely different if the 50 year old was a Woman.