I believe Dead is saying two wrongs don't make a right. He's dead right, Jeremy (no pun intended). The Studds issue was damnably wrong. As is the Foley issue.
I'm not sure if "wrong" is the proper word to use here. I would have chosen "different". Foley, so far as anyone knows, had a conscentual conversation via an internet chat with a legal adult. No sex, no rape, no crime, to speak of has yet been charged. Studds, actually did have a sexual relationship with minor. I'm not sure the two are similar enough to make them "two wrongs". Apparently, with Studds it was not considered "wrong". If it was he would have been charged criminally and or resigned or been removed after censure, which never happened. In fact, this happened at the beginning of his career. He went on for nearly 10 years before he finally came out and admitted "having an affair with an underage page". Then he went on to work another 10 years after that... No questions asked. No apology, no resignation, no rehap, no criminal investigation, nothing... So my point again? Not that two wrongs don't make a right. It is ok for a democrat to have sex with a minor of the same sex, so long as that democrat hides the truth for about 10 years, then admits he is gay and damn proud of it. It is not ok for a Republican to talk to a legal adult via an internet chat room. If a Republican admits they are gay, they must be a pervert. You really have to wonder why the media never brings up Gerry Studds? It would have been really apropos recently given Studds died around the same time all this hoopla about Foley was going on. Forever locked in double standards.
I'm sorry - maybe I've gotten my facts wrong. Foley's ass is on the line (gotta stop with the puns) for inappropriate comments to a teenager during e-mail exchanges, not adult chatroom conversations - do I have this wrong?
That's the info I last saw as well. A report that the page in question was 18 at the time of the chat.
Not from what I've seen. This scuzbucket was sending explicit messages to kids ranging from 16 to below 18 - no where near appropriate, much less of "legal age." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley_scandal Among other things, -The "teen" of this exchange indicates he was not yet 18. Bottom line for me, both of them need(ed) to go bye bye. Inexcusable that Studds wasn't brought up on charges, and the same holds now.
Absolutely, I believe we can all agree on this. I recall a drudge headline/report back when all this took place, that the page in question (not subsequent "allegations") was 18 at the time. I also recall someone posting about legal age of consent in the state of representation being 16. It seems the biggest differences here though, is that a democrat actually did the bad deed and nothing happened (leaving democrats in an awkward position (no pun intended) on how they treat such within their own ranks) to Studds. In fact, Mel Reynolds was another in the dem party, far more recently who did the same. And the result? Clinton commuted his sentence and Reynolds is now attempting to run as a democrat, again. It seems democrats have the actual history behind their belt, where Foley has done nothing more than send emails (alleged). I'd say that if democrats are going to use the high moral card here, they ought to clean up their own backyard (no pun) and apply more even handed rules to their own, who in fact HAVE DONE the dirty deed.
I agree. No question. No one should claim the high ground, and both parties, in their own interest, should be as aggressive as hell in rooting out this b.s. Mel Reynolds is one of the most gifted idiots I have ever known.
My but you are a rude little beeeee-ach ain't cha? North is exactly right. I was saying two wrongs do not make a right. I was using other cases involving criminality to highlight this age old adage. I was speaking in analogies actually. Mia, One test given to determine the intelligence of someone is to discern if they can understand analogies. Mia, quick, what does it mean when you hear: A rolling stone gathers no moss? You can't have your pie and eat it? He who smelt it - dealt it?
Is there some part of myspace where the moonbats gather one by one before they decide to subscribe to DP? For analogies to work one must compare apples to apples, not to OJ (Orange Juice)
LOL... For analogies to work you must compare apples to apples. Precisely the opposite, kiddo. analogies in: 5. Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects. If the two things were the same there would be no need for an analogy, kid. 6. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar. 7. Biology. Correspondence in function or position between organs of dissimilar evolutionary origin or structure. n 1: an inference that if things agree in some respects they probably agree in others 2: drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect; "the operation of a computer presents and interesting analogy to the working of the brain"; (Hardly an apple to an apple, but maybe you should be writing your own dictionary with your own unique understanding of the language ) anyway, Mia, you seem to be having trouble keeping up, and I really couldn't care less if you ever learn what an analogy is or not. You are free to live in your ignorance.
Total double standards are being played here, but Mia, don't let it make it look like you want nothing to happen to the guy. From what I understand was some of it happened while the boy was under 17. I don't think it is OK at any age, but in our society, they accept it as norm and those who don't accept it as homophobic, bigoted, ignorant, etc.etc.. etc.... (Oh I'm sorry it is homosexuality, since he is a republican- it is now pedophilia.) Either way punish the pediphile. Don't let him do it again. Keep him away from my children. Deadcorn probably feels similar in this case.
Believe me, I am in no way defending Foley. I think justice should be applied swiftly and justly. I am just bothered by the fact that no one seems to bring up the double standard that is being applied. I'm a dad too, and I for one know that is the one thing that would make me kill another human being, outside of self defense. Either way, this behaivor should not be tolerated on either side of the isle. The fact that is is now being used as some sort of anti-republican coverup bs is what bothers me. At least this guy actually resigned and has begun to admit he has problems in several areas. Studds ignored the issue and kept working and the status quo said, "ok, no problem."
Total agreement with you on that! The whole cover-up garbage is laughable, but liberals (and liberal media) wanted something so bad. I am glad the guy resigned, and I hope an investigation does pull some more bad roots out, but I don't count on it either way. he said/she said kind of stuff with who knew what when. The guys on this forum who want to make it such a big deal are a joke too. "Oh see folly did such and such and the republicans covered it up. See they all are crooks in with the oil companies. wah wah wah. nixon nixon" This is where politics just looks like grade school. Get together people and do something about it. Apply the standards EQUALLY if you know what that means. (p.s. that doesn't mean the richer they are they more you cry nixon stuff either. Get a job and shut up.) ... jumping of the DP soapbox now...
but in other threads you say this behavior is ok and should be accepted at all levels. I don't get you...
really I said trying to molest kids is ok? funny I don't remember that or is it that you are so stupid that you equate acceptance of gays with child molestation?
Debunked, you are right on the money. What I don't get from some at this forum, is that since one guy got away with it, how does THAT suddenly therefore become the standard? And were what I am observing not the truth of their motives, why would we even be discussing "the other guy?" This is the worst kind of ignorant politicizing I have ever encountered. It is disgraceful.