|
|
Post by davdesid on May 15, 2011 15:57:39 GMT -8
OOOhhh... Three posts in a row! Gotcha! Never a Democrat? C'mon, you can do it! Tell us how Studds' activity was "only about sex" and shouldn't have any bearing on his job as a public servant. Then tell us about Foley. Do you really want to engage in a contest of links regarding gay scandals comparing conservatives and liberals? There is no gotcha there, Dave, because the left accepts gays while the right does not. =Bob Yup, that's correct! The left accepts pedophile congressmen poking teenagers in the ass. They cheer it. The right makes them take a walk. Thanks for agreeing. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on May 15, 2011 16:05:11 GMT -8
Do you really want to engage in a contest of links regarding gay scandals comparing conservatives and liberals? There is no gotcha there, Dave, because the left accepts gays while the right does not. =Bob Yup, that's correct! The left accepts pedophile congressmen poking teenagers in the ass. They cheer it. The right makes them take a walk. Thanks for agreeing. Lame answer; try again. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on May 15, 2011 16:11:13 GMT -8
Yup, that's correct! The left accepts pedophile congressmen poking teenagers in the ass. They cheer it. The right makes them take a walk. Thanks for agreeing. Lame answer; try again. =Bob Lame answer. You should try again. Tell us why butt-f****r congresscreeps are "okay" as long as they are Democrats. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on May 15, 2011 16:17:18 GMT -8
Lame answer; try again. =Bob Lame answer. You should try again. Tell us why butt-f****r congresscreeps are "okay" as long as they are Democrats. Sorry, you lose. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on May 15, 2011 16:26:07 GMT -8
Lame answer. You should try again. Tell us why butt-f****r congresscreeps are "okay" as long as they are Democrats. Sorry, you lose. =Bob No. You lose. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 16, 2011 8:13:06 GMT -8
Thanks for the link. Did you read the page's testimony? It was consensual. Since I am not sure what the age of consent is where the sexual activity took place, I am not sure any laws were broken. I do agree that Congressmen should not be having sexual relations with pages, period. Or do you think it is only wrong if it is homosexual? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 16, 2011 8:21:19 GMT -8
Except in this case the woman apparently wasn't a willing partner. =Bob Do you think Juanita Broderick, one of Clinton's rape victims was willing? Give it up, most of those guys are dirt balls and more are on the left. If there had been one bit of evidence of any rapes by Clinton it would have been revealed at his impeachment trial. House Republicans left nothing behind in their attempt to remove him from office. If there was any truth to the rape accusations they would have been part of the trial. Give it up. Only slimeballs from the right continue bleating lies in the hope that if they are told often enough people will believe them.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 16, 2011 13:14:41 GMT -8
Do you think Juanita Broderick, one of Clinton's rape victims was willing? Give it up, most of those guys are dirt balls and more are on the left. If there had been one bit of evidence of any rapes by Clinton it would have been revealed at his impeachment trial. House Republicans left nothing behind in their attempt to remove him from office. If there was any truth to the rape accusations they would have been part of the trial. Give it up. Only slimeballs from the right continue bleating lies in the hope that if they are told often enough people will believe them. Broderick was just one in a long line of incidents in Slick Willies past. Talk about slime balls, Clinton is right up there with the worst. No wonder you like him. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on May 16, 2011 14:43:48 GMT -8
Thanks for the link. Did you read the page's testimony? It was consensual. Since I am not sure what the age of consent is where the sexual activity took place, I am not sure any laws were broken. I do agree that Congressmen should not be having sexual relations with pages, period. Or do you think it is only wrong if it is homosexual? Yes, I read it. Wrong is wrong when "doing" underaged teens; I'll go a step further and say it's wrong for seniors to "do" juniors in any work environment regardless of age or flavor. (Think Clinton) But considering the comment you made in another thread in which you tried to tar so-called "values" Republicans with the Ensign affair, and the =Perfesser adding his two cents here by claiming the Coburn involvement is "typical" Republican behavior, my response is that your party has plenty of examples of aberrant behavior too. Edwards is a good example of hypocrisy on the part of Democrats. "Many on Edwards's campaign knew about his affair. Many in the press also strongly suspected but the story was never pursued, not least because Elizabeth Edwards was a media darling.""Among the senior Democrats who worked for Edwards in 2004 was David Axelrod, now part of President Barack Obama's inner circle. And in 2008 Obama spent months wooing Edwards to get his endorsement against Clinton in the primaries.""Edwards talked about his love for his wife while he was entertaining his mistress in the marital bed. He championed the poor while expressing contempt for them."www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7111826/John-Edwards-the-ultimate-American-politician.html Read the whole thing. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 16, 2011 18:55:54 GMT -8
Republicans like to run on a family values ticket, I guess because they can not run on a competence ticket, so when they turn out to be human, after all the pious platitudes, I do like to point it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on May 16, 2011 19:06:02 GMT -8
Thanks for the link. Did you read the page's testimony? It was consensual. Since I am not sure what the age of consent is where the sexual activity took place, I am not sure any laws were broken. I do agree that Congressmen should not be having sexual relations with pages, period. Or do you think it is only wrong if it is homosexual? Yes, I read it. Wrong is wrong when "doing" underaged teens; I'll go a step further and say it's wrong for seniors to "do" juniors in any work environment regardless of age or flavor. Certainly, but you claimed pederasty, which means, as you state, underaged. Who was screwing 16 year olds? =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on May 17, 2011 12:25:25 GMT -8
Republicans like to run on a family values ticket, I guess because they can not run on a competence ticket, so when they turn out to be human, after all the pious platitudes, I do like to point it out. Well, I'll agree that Democrats don't run on standards or values, so that's why they get a pass. They have none. That's why they can get drunk, drive their paramours off bridges, let them drown, and get away with it. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on May 17, 2011 12:29:53 GMT -8
Yes, I read it. Wrong is wrong when "doing" underaged teens; I'll go a step further and say it's wrong for seniors to "do" juniors in any work environment regardless of age or flavor. Certainly, but you claimed pederasty, which means, as you state, underaged. Who was screwing 16 year olds? =Bob Correct me if you know better, but 17 is underaged in any jurisdiction I am aware of. Either way, I'll put you down as approving of Studds' antics. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on May 17, 2011 18:08:14 GMT -8
Certainly, but you claimed pederasty, which means, as you state, underaged. Who was screwing 16 year olds? =Bob Correct me if you know better, but 17 is underaged in any jurisdiction I am aware of. Either way, I'll put you down as approving of Studds' antics. Fine, that's one. Unfortunately you failed to mention that Dan Crane was also named in that scandal: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_congressional_page_sex_scandalSorry Dave, but you have a really bad habit of offering selective links in a vane attempt to make your point while never bothering to do the necessary research required to make sure you're aren't open to attack. It's your major failing. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 17, 2011 21:37:22 GMT -8
Certainly, but you claimed pederasty, which means, as you state, underaged. Who was screwing 16 year olds? =Bob Correct me if you know better, but 17 is underaged in any jurisdiction I am aware of. Either way, I'll put you down as approving of Studds' antics. Why not just google "age of consent" rather than just be ignorant? Oh, I forgot, conservatives think being ignorant is good. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 17, 2011 21:45:14 GMT -8
If there had been one bit of evidence of any rapes by Clinton it would have been revealed at his impeachment trial. House Republicans left nothing behind in their attempt to remove him from office. If there was any truth to the rape accusations they would have been part of the trial. Give it up. Only slimeballs from the right continue bleating lies in the hope that if they are told often enough people will believe them. Broderick was just one in a long line of incidents in Slick Willies past. Talk about slime balls, Clinton is right up there with the worst. No wonder you like him. If Starr could have found evidence of rape he would used it. You are just repeating old lies. Your usual modus operandi. Why resort to the truth when a lie suits your politics better. So typical of you. You know, I really feel sorry for you. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 18, 2011 12:05:32 GMT -8
Broderick was just one in a long line of incidents in Slick Willies past. Talk about slime balls, Clinton is right up there with the worst. No wonder you like him. If Starr could have found evidence of rape he would used it. You are just repeating old lies. Your usual modus operandi. Why resort to the truth when a lie suits your politics better. So typical of you. You know, I really feel sorry for you. Not knowing the difference between the issue at The Clinton Impeachment and any possible criminal action is funny. But then you never have demonstrated all that much knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on May 18, 2011 12:17:26 GMT -8
Correct me if you know better, but 17 is underaged in any jurisdiction I am aware of. Either way, I'll put you down as approving of Studds' antics. Fine, that's one. Unfortunately you failed to mention that Dan Crane was also named in that scandal: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_congressional_page_sex_scandalSorry Dave, but you have a really bad habit of offering selective links in a vane attempt to make your point while never bothering to do the necessary research required to make sure you're aren't open to attack. It's your major failing. =Bob Why am I open to attack? I don't condone any of them. You opened yourself to attack by starting this thread with a comment of it being "typical Republican". I'm just rubbing your nose in the fact that your party is every bit as dirty with creeps. But go ahead and defend them. I expect it of you. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on May 18, 2011 12:18:42 GMT -8
Correct me if you know better, but 17 is underaged in any jurisdiction I am aware of. Either way, I'll put you down as approving of Studds' antics. Why not just google "age of consent" rather than just be ignorant? Oh, I forgot, conservatives think being ignorant is good. Ok, I'll put you down as a Studds defender, too. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 18, 2011 12:25:39 GMT -8
Why not just google "age of consent" rather than just be ignorant? Oh, I forgot, conservatives think being ignorant is good. Ok, I'll put you down as a Studds defender, too. As if I care what you think. |
|
