Clueless freepers

[proud2BlibKansan]

I don't even know where to begin with this one. It was posted on a little discussion board I am on. Other than pointing out that Foley resigned and wasn't kicked out, I don't know what to say to this idiot.

Foley was kicked out. Studds was kept, and later he rose through the ranks of the democrat leadership. The difference is stark. A pedophile (by your definitiion) can rise in the democrat party yet is forced to resign by republicans.

[bryant69]

1. There's a few differences in the cases

One was that the Studds matter was revealed 10 years after it happened. Another is that the page in question stood by Studds and both said publically that what they had done or not done was nobody's business but their own. A third is that Studds did not resign, and Foley did. Regardless of the terminology, nobody forced Foley to resign - they pressured him to, I'm sure, but they couldn't force him. He chose to resign - it's impossible to know what would have happened if Foley had fought it (although it's clear that Drudge and Rush at least would have supported him).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Justice Is Comin]

18. On the contrary buddy, they pleaded with him to run and this is

almost a quote from Rove, "because they feared two years of investigations if they lost the House."

They covered up and they intended to fund him with whatever it took despite knowing he was a page porker.

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. Start with, "You're clearly delusional and trying to fight imaginary

demons. The "democrat party" does not exist."

[babylonsister]

3. Also, in Studds' case, the page was of

legal age so it wasn't a 'crime'.

From wiki:

"...censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with minors – in Studds' case, a 1973 sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page who was of the age of legal consent. The relationship was consensual (which made it legal, in accordance with state law),..."

OT: How are you doing, proud? I saw your post in the lounge; my sympathies, friend.:hug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. Trying to deal with my demons by arguing with freepers

LOL

I am hanging in there, Sister. Thanks for asking. The wake is Monday and the funeral is Tuesday. I am taking off work till then.

[moc]

4. Agree with them that the difference is indeed stark.

Studds had a single affair with one individual minor.

Foley was predatory toward countless minors.

Studds was sanctioned by Congress as soon as his affair was revealed.

Republican House leaders have been aware of Foley's predatory behavior for a decade, but they chose to hide it in order to preserve power. They chose party power over the safety of countless minors.

Foley was not "forced out" as you note. He only resigned when his predatory behavior was going to hit the media. If the repubs were going to "force him out" they would have done it years ago when they became aware of his predatory behavior.

Yes, the differences are indeed stark.

[MrModerate]

5. Well, Foley *was* forced to resign . . . which is sort of like . . .

Being kicked out.

The major difference between Studds and Foley is that Studds was unashamed and (once his personal business was doomed to be dragged through the street) unapologetic; Foley was a massive hypocrite and a coward to boot (demon rum made him do it).

And (as proven by the response by viewers of 'Brokeback Mountain') a love affair is something most people can understand, while jerking off onto your keyboard is universally icky. Studds was a gay man; Foley is a creepazoid. People possessing some kind of moral compass can tell the difference.

[grizmaster]

6. Studds was censured and the statute of limitations

was long past when the story came out. One other thing, Studd's incident seemed to be completely isolated making their claim that it was love more credible, while Foley obviously was going after every bit of underage tail he could.

As to Studds getting reelected, that was the voters not Congress.

[MADem]

7. Tell the idiot to look up Dan Crane, who didn't resign either

And then ask him if he really believes that two wrongs make a right. And then ask him if he thinks voters should be allowed to CHOOSE their representatives, or does he know best?

That's only if you are compelled to respond at all.

For the life of me I can't understand how people can bear the angst of arguing with idiots. To me, it is akin to being forced to go to kindergarten every day as a mature and educated adult, and actively participate in the process over and over again, like Groundhog Day. The mind turns to mush, you see....but everyone gets their kicks in different ways, I suppose!!

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. It's great therapy

and it keeps me up on their latest talking points.

Besides, it's fun, cause they are always wrong.

[MADem]

20. I suppose it's better than kicking the dog, but damn, you have a stronger

stomach than I do...I just don't suffer dunces easily, unless they've got a medical condition that causes their dullness of comprehension!

[Fleshdancer]

9. Not only was Foley not kicked out, but Hastert knew about it...

...for a long time and instead of doing anything about it, he hoped no one would find out. Rove strong armed Foley to stay for purely political reasons and Congress had NO intentions of even censuring Foley.

After Studds (and the Republican who was also censured that year for the same offense) Congress made changes in the Page program to keep this sort of thing from happening again. To say that the Democrats gave Studds a pass is ridiculous. To say that the Republicans were tough on Foley is insane.

As for Studds rising in the Democratic Party after his censure, what is exactly is the freep talking about? The Democratic leadership stripped Studds of his chairmanship of the House Merchant Marine Subcommittee. Studds was later appointed chair of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Is this the huge big leadership role we're talking about now? Chair of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries?? Seriously? Now contrast this to the roles Foley had in Congress even after Hastert knew what was going on.

Furthermore, just read my sig line.

I can buy the argument that Studds was wrong in his actions because he was. Congressmen/women should not have affairs with Pages. But to use that as an excuse to ignore Foley's actions is just stupid. One wrong doesn't cancel out another. If we're going to compare how each political party dealt with the situation however, the republicans can't win this one. Covering up and ignoring the problem was a huge mistake.

[Ishoutandscream2]

10. And tell the bastard to use a proper adjective

"Democrat party." Proper noun describing another noun. Incorrect.

"Democratic party." Proper adjective describing noun. Correct.

[wryter2000]

11. Call what Foley did what it is

Sexual harassment of teenagers.

[LSK]

12. agree with them that it was a shame Studds kept his job

HOWEVER, that was over 20 years ago and who in the leadership then is even in office now????

Was Pelosi a leader then?? Was Reid a leader then??? Was Dean head of the DNC then???

Its irrelevant.

[Justice Is Comin]

21. But it was the congress who made that decision to keep Studds.

Wasn't it only 3 votes for expulsion ?

His remaining in Congress doesn't need any explanation after that.

[zbdent]

13. and was Studds promoting and sponsoring legislation to make

exactly what he was doing illegal and immoral, all the while denying that he was doing it, along with the help of the rest of the party covering it up WELL AFTER IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE PARTY'S ATTENTION?

[leftofthedial]

15. your title is redundant and repetitive

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. LOL

Sorry bout that. :)

[warrens]

16. No one forced him to resign

They protected him for 10 years. Everyone knew about this, there were complaints for years. But nothing was done.

Studds went back to his district, which is not particularly liberal, btw, and admitted all and offered to withdraw. His voters wanted him, he ran again, and he won big. Does this assclown think Foley would have won this year?

[MiniMe]

17. It was 1973 then, and a totally different world

[11 Bravo]

22. Clueless freepers, now there's a redundancy!