Growing GOP Pedophile List

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]JeffR wrote:
holifila wrote:

  1. Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.

OUCH!!!

Hey, bradley. I’d ram this down your throat.

However, you never claimed to have any morals as a party.

JeffR
[/quote]

Good point; however, as in the Folley case, the page in question wasn’t under age–the age of consent in DC (and in Mass at the time) is 16!

Everyone crying pedophilia is doing so before they even know how old the kid is–in all likelihood, Folley committed no crime!

82

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
rainjack wrote:

CLinton’s crime was not a blowjob, however. It was lying to a grand jury. That’s called perjury. That’s why Willie’s not a lawyer anymore. That’s why he was impeached.

Note that’s the same crime for which a lot of folks would like to see Scooter Libby do jail time…[/quote]

Very true, good point.

It’s funny how the left always boils Clinton’s crimes dowm to “just a blowjob”. Like that was his only indescretion while in office.

Also, the crime that the left wants Libby to do time for, the same crime that they want to give billy boy a pass on, is the same crime that they always defend Clinton by saying “who wouldn’t lie, I’d lie to!”. This is a comment I’ve personally heard many times.

A little inconsistant IMHO.

83

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

While 100meters is not stupid he certainly is blindly partisan.

Quite possibly the most blindly partisan person on this forum, left or right.

No, that would be the morons that had their briefs in a not over Clintons blowjob. Do you remember how old that young lady was at that time?
And now cry left wing bitch job when the tables are turned.

What are you saying? You’re moral outrage then was fake?
Or you hold democrats to higher standards then republicans.

Which one do you choose? [/quote]

Two questions for you wreckless, did billy boy commit purjory? and do you think that was okay?

What say you.

84

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

While 100meters is not stupid he certainly is blindly partisan.

Quite possibly the most blindly partisan person on this forum, left or right.

No, that would be the morons that had their briefs in a not over Clintons blowjob. Do you remember how old that young lady was at that time?
And now cry left wing bitch job when the tables are turned.

What are you saying? You’re moral outrage then was fake?
Or you hold democrats to higher standards then republicans.

Which one do you choose?

Both Lewinski and the boy are of legal age in Washington DC and Foley’s homestate of Florida.

Clinton had sex with his intern. Foley did not.

Foley resigned over his poor judgement.
Clinton did not.

Seems the low life Foley is still a more honorable person that Clinton.

The only way you could be more angry at Foley is if you are so partisan it makes you hypocritical and/or you are a homophobe. [/quote]

Only blindly partisan hacks like wreckless, 100m, etc., would try to dispute these excellent points.

85

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Everyone crying pedophilia is doing so before they even know how old the kid is–in all likelihood, Folley committed no crime!
[/quote]

Makes ya wonder why he even resigned.

86

I am trying to give a shit, but I just can’t. I must be fresh out of shit. Besides you gotta be some kind of metally inept fag to actually be a politician. The news is slanted and depressing. don’t watch it and wath your mood improve.

87

Florida can’t find 1,000 kids in state custody
CNN
June 4, 2002
TALLAHASSEE, Florida (CNN) – Florida’s child welfare agency said Monday it was unable to account for about 1,000 children in its system, including about 400 believed to have run away and more than 100 others missing because a non-custodial parent or relative took them…
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/06/03/florida.child.welfare/

I’m just saying…

88

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
rainjack wrote:

CLinton’s crime was not a blowjob, however. It was lying to a grand jury. That’s called perjury. That’s why Willie’s not a lawyer anymore. That’s why he was impeached.

Note that’s the same crime for which a lot of folks would like to see Scooter Libby do jail time…[/quote]

Damn…That’s an excellent point.

89

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Both Lewinski and the boy are of legal age in Washington DC and Foley’s homestate of Florida.
[/quote]

Not so fast, Flash. The page may have been below the age of consent in Foley’s home state, at the time the emails were sent. The investigation is just getting started.

Foley’s been chasing pages for 10 years. Congress set up a tips line for former pages to call.

As far as Hastert and leadership inaction, when that family contacted them (privately) to complain about Foley, GOP leadership asked Foley if he was doing anything wrong, and Foley said no.

That was as far as it went, as far as due diligence.

They didn’t investigate, they didn’t do anything except tell Foley to knock it off.

90

[quote]rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
So a GOP staffer leaks these to media and it’s democratic shenanigans.

Oh the silliness rainjack.

Yes. Very much a left-wing bitch move I don’t care who the leaker works for. When was it leaked? How long was it sat on? I think the party affiliation of the reporter is more telling than which lever the staffer pulls.

One would have to be blind and stupid not to see the timing of this and do the math.

While 100meters is not stupid he certainly is blindly partisan.

If by blindly partisan you mean addicted to reality then yes!

Don’t bogart the pipe. It must be some good shit. [/quote]
How dare you!

91

[quote]JeffR wrote:
holifila wrote:

  1. Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.

OUCH!!!

Hey, bradley. I’d ram this down your throat.

However, you never claimed to have any morals as a party.

JeffR

[/quote]
Gee… It seems like you forgot DAN CRANE R-IL implicated at the same time as Studds.

He still ran after being found guilty(censured) and was urged to run(and ran) by the grand ol’ predator party.

Strange that you forgot him.

almost hypocritical.

92

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

While 100meters is not stupid he certainly is blindly partisan.

Quite possibly the most blindly partisan person on this forum, left or right.

No, that would be the morons that had their briefs in a not over Clintons blowjob. Do you remember how old that young lady was at that time?
And now cry left wing bitch job when the tables are turned.

What are you saying? You’re moral outrage then was fake?
Or you hold democrats to higher standards then republicans.

Which one do you choose?

Both Lewinski and the boy are of legal age in Washington DC and Foley’s homestate of Florida.

Clinton had sex with his intern. Foley did not.

Foley resigned over his poor judgement.
Clinton did not.

Seems the low life Foley is still a more honorable person that Clinton.

The only way you could be more angry at Foley is if you are so partisan it makes you hypocritical and/or you are a homophobe.

Only blindly partisan hacks like wreckless, 100m, etc., would try to dispute these excellent points.

[/quote]

Clinton had relations with a woman(22).
Foley had relations with 16 year old boys.

Only a total jackass would compare the 2.

93

[quote]100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
holifila wrote:

  1. Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.

OUCH!!!

Hey, bradley. I’d ram this down your throat.

However, you never claimed to have any morals as a party.

JeffR

Gee… It seems like you forgot DAN CRANE R-IL implicated at the same time as Studds.

He still ran after being found guilty(censured) and was urged to run(and ran) by the grand ol’ predator party.

Strange that you forgot him.

almost hypocritical.[/quote]

Oh, lumpy.

Are you sure you want to engage in which party has less moral standing?

Yes?

Ok, you asked for it.

Here’s a quick description of the two from wikipedia:

"The 1983 Congressional page sex scandal was a political scandal in the United States involving members of the United States House of Representatives.

On July 14, 1983 the House Ethics Committee concluded that Rep. Dan Crane (R-Ill.) and Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.) had engaged in sexual relationships with minors, specifically 17-year-old congressional pages. In Crane’s case, it was a 1980 relationship with a female page and in Studds’s case, it was a 1973 relationship with a male page. Both representatives immediately pleaded guilty to the charges and the committee decided to simply reprimand the two.

However, Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) demanded their expulsion. On July 20, 1983, the House voted for censure, the first time that censure had been imposed for sexual misconduct. Crane, who subsequently apologized for his transgression, lost his bid for reelection in 1984.

Studds, however, stood by the facts of the case and refused to apologize for his behavior, and even turned his back and ignored the censure being read to him. He called a press conference with the former page, in which both stated that the young man was legal and consenting. Studds did not break any U.S. laws for that time, in what he and page called a “private relationship.”[1] He continued to be reelected until his retirement in 1996."

It illustrates quite nicely the difference between how Republicans and dems deal with these issues.

crane apologized tearfully.

studds did not.

crane was gone.

studds was reelected over and over.

You might want to stick to other issues.

The dems are the unquestioned sleaze queens.

JeffR

94

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Everyone crying pedophilia is doing so before they even know how old the kid is–in all likelihood, Folley committed no crime!

Makes ya wonder why he even resigned.
[/quote]

Not really. He violated House ethics–as did Studds–only he, or someone in his camp, was smart enough to realize that, in an election year, he’d only do more harm to the party if he stayed. So long as it was to be made public, he had little choice…

95

[quote]lumpy wrote:

Clinton had relations with a woman(22).
Foley had relations with 16 year old boys.

Only a total jackass would compare the 2.[/quote]

lumpy, do you object if (as is being currently reported) the page was age 18?

Very simple question requiring a yes or no.

JeffR

96

Three more pages have come forward with allegations against Foley.

Ouch.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/three_more_form.html

97

[quote]JeffR wrote:
100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
holifila wrote:

  1. Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.

OUCH!!!

Hey, bradley. I’d ram this down your throat.

However, you never claimed to have any morals as a party.

JeffR

Gee… It seems like you forgot DAN CRANE R-IL implicated at the same time as Studds.

He still ran after being found guilty(censured) and was urged to run(and ran) by the grand ol’ predator party.

Strange that you forgot him.

almost hypocritical.

Oh, lumpy.

Are you sure you want to engage in which party has less moral standing?

Yes?

Ok, you asked for it.

Here’s a quick description of the two from wikipedia:

"The 1983 Congressional page sex scandal was a political scandal in the United States involving members of the United States House of Representatives.

On July 14, 1983 the House Ethics Committee concluded that Rep. Dan Crane (R-Ill.) and Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.) had engaged in sexual relationships with minors, specifically 17-year-old congressional pages. In Crane’s case, it was a 1980 relationship with a female page and in Studds’s case, it was a 1973 relationship with a male page. Both representatives immediately pleaded guilty to the charges and the committee decided to simply reprimand the two.

However, Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) demanded their expulsion. On July 20, 1983, the House voted for censure, the first time that censure had been imposed for sexual misconduct. Crane, who subsequently apologized for his transgression, lost his bid for reelection in 1984.

Studds, however, stood by the facts of the case and refused to apologize for his behavior, and even turned his back and ignored the censure being read to him. He called a press conference with the former page, in which both stated that the young man was legal and consenting. Studds did not break any U.S. laws for that time, in what he and page called a “private relationship.”[1] He continued to be reelected until his retirement in 1996."

It illustrates quite nicely the difference between how Republicans and dems deal with these issues.

crane apologized tearfully.

studds did not.

crane was gone.

studds was reelected over and over.

You might want to stick to other issues.

The dems are the unquestioned sleaze queens.

JeffR

[/quote]

You idiot.
They did the same thing.

The.
only.
difference.

Stubbs won re-election.
Crane did not.(despite trying and being encouraged to.)

98

[quote]JeffR wrote:
lumpy wrote:

Clinton had relations with a woman(22).
Foley had relations with 16 year old boys.

Only a total jackass would compare the 2.

lumpy, do you object if (as is being currently reported) the page was age 18?

Very simple question requiring a yes or no.

JeffR

[/quote]

Monica was 22.

If the page was 22, then NO.

99

[quote]100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
lumpy wrote:

Clinton had relations with a woman(22).
Foley had relations with 16 year old boys.

Only a total jackass would compare the 2.

lumpy, do you object if (as is being currently reported) the page was age 18?

Very simple question requiring a yes or no.

JeffR

Monica was 22.

If the page was 22, then NO.[/quote]

Not what I asked.

Pretty clumsy.

Try again.

Age 18 ok?

JeffR

100

[quote]100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
holifila wrote:

  1. Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.

OUCH!!!

Hey, bradley. I’d ram this down your throat.

However, you never claimed to have any morals as a party.

JeffR

Gee… It seems like you forgot DAN CRANE R-IL implicated at the same time as Studds.

He still ran after being found guilty(censured) and was urged to run(and ran) by the grand ol’ predator party.

Strange that you forgot him.

almost hypocritical.

Oh, lumpy.

Are you sure you want to engage in which party has less moral standing?

Yes?

Ok, you asked for it.

Here’s a quick description of the two from wikipedia:

"The 1983 Congressional page sex scandal was a political scandal in the United States involving members of the United States House of Representatives.

On July 14, 1983 the House Ethics Committee concluded that Rep. Dan Crane (R-Ill.) and Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.) had engaged in sexual relationships with minors, specifically 17-year-old congressional pages. In Crane’s case, it was a 1980 relationship with a female page and in Studds’s case, it was a 1973 relationship with a male page. Both representatives immediately pleaded guilty to the charges and the committee decided to simply reprimand the two.

However, Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) demanded their expulsion. On July 20, 1983, the House voted for censure, the first time that censure had been imposed for sexual misconduct. Crane, who subsequently apologized for his transgression, lost his bid for reelection in 1984.

Studds, however, stood by the facts of the case and refused to apologize for his behavior, and even turned his back and ignored the censure being read to him. He called a press conference with the former page, in which both stated that the young man was legal and consenting. Studds did not break any U.S. laws for that time, in what he and page called a “private relationship.”[1] He continued to be reelected until his retirement in 1996."

It illustrates quite nicely the difference between how Republicans and dems deal with these issues.

crane apologized tearfully.

studds did not.

crane was gone.

studds was reelected over and over.

You might want to stick to other issues.

The dems are the unquestioned sleaze queens.

JeffR

You idiot.
They did the same thing.

The.
only.
difference.

Stubbs won re-election.
Crane did not.(despite trying and being encouraged to.)

[/quote]

Wrong.

Didn’t apologize.

Even brought forth his accuser defiantley.

Garnered dem money and support “until he retired.”

HUGE DIFFERENCE.

Again, pretty clumsy.

JeffR