Perverted, God-Hating Frenchies vs. Inbred, Sex-Obsessed Yokels

[Reliant]

You're not a Republican? You know, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

LOL.... it's definitely a duck!

We probably shouldn't forget the gay whore house that was operating out of Barney Frank's home either.

Definitely not. I heard some of his best customers were Republican Senators and Congressmen.

Update:
A NYC escort writes on her experiences with Republican clients during the RNC, read as well the comments, including one about an escort who never takes Republicans as "....invariably they were fat, BAD about paying and almost all of them had a kink too wierd to deal with. Usually the 'mommy spank me, beat me, "F" me' kind- to the extreme".
Yes, they all seem to be "Grand Old Perverts"

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Just out of morbid curiosity, what's your preference, little boys or little girls?

This is innapropriate and I am giving you a warning for it. Arguing about ideology is fine, but do not accuse another member of personally being a pedophile.

 

[Reliant]

This is innapropriate and I am giving you a warning for it. Arguing about ideology is fine, but do not accuse another member of personally being a pedophile.

What??? Where did I accuse anyone of being a pedophile? Please point out where I said palerider, or anyone else for that matter, was a Pedophile.

Now I understand that the right has no regard for individual rights such as Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Expression, but I am curious to see if you will demonstrate your loathsome propensity to exhibit these injustices. And if you really cared about all members of your forum you would have chastised palerider for his personal attacks on just about everyone who doesn't fall into lockstep with his, and obviously your, right-wing ideology.

 

[Coyote]

Are you going to argue that the democrats didn't give Gerry Studds a standing ovation on the floor of the house? This congressman admitted a sexual relationship with a 17 year old boy and suggested that everyone should butt out as it was a matter between him and the boy. Excuse me, but isn't that sort of thing what nambla is all about?

Not quite. According to Wikipedia:

Gerry Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane (Republican) were 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) but presented ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates.

During the course of the House Ethics Committee's investigation, Studds publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to a Washington Post article, "apparently was not news to many of his constituents." Studds stated in an address to the House, "It is not a simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either public or private life, let alone both, but these challenges are made substantially more complex when one is, as I am, both an elected public official and gay." He acknowledged that it had been inappropriate to engage in a relationship with a subordinate, and said his actions represented "a very serious error in judgment."

The House voted to censure Studds, on July 20, 1983, by a vote of 420-3. While Studds has often been reported as having "turned his back on the House" as the House read its censure motion aloud, contemporary reports made it clear that in contrast to Crane, who faced the House as the motion for his censure was read, Studds faced the Speaker who was actually reading the motion, with his back to the other members. Also in contrast to Crane, who left the chamber after his censure, Studds rejoined the other members of the House after his censure was read. In addition to the censure, 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. Studds received two standing ovations from supporters in his home district at his first town meeting following his congressional censure.

You imply that the Democratic party gave him standing ovations. They did not. His consituents did.

In addition, NAMBLA advocates the legalization of sexual relations between adult males and under-aged boys.

Underaged. It's a disgusting organization. And again - please provide an example that indicates the Democratic party in any way accepts or supports them.

This is like saying that the Republican party endorses racism because it doesn't support affirmative action or any number of other misleading but passion-provoking statements.

 

[9sublime]

Just out of morbid curiosity, what's your preference, little boys or little girls?

Right there Reliant.

For lack of a better word, "Kudos" to FryandBender for that post!

 

[Reliant]

Right there Reliant.

Understood. Even though I did not "accuse another member of personally being a pedophile" as the Almighty clearly stated. As long as I take the bull from the right, cower in the corner, and get "thicker skin" as top gun was told to do, everything will be fine. I have been here only a few days and have seen two people complained about palerider. If he is your bud, and therefore can do no wrong, just say so. I will avoid his ignorant ad hominem attacks and dirty politics as he doesn't have much to offer anyway, except insults. You should make him a Moderator.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Now I understand that the right has no regard for individual rights such as Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Expression, but I am curious to see if you will demonstrate your loathsome propensity to exhibit these injustices. And if you really cared about all members of your forum you would have chastised palerider for his personal attacks on just about everyone who doesn't fall into lockstep with his, and obviously your, right-wing ideology.

I'll ignore your silly partisanship right here and address your concerns.

(1) This is a privately run board. You agreed to certain rules when you joined here and the Administrators and Moderators reserve the right to warn and ban posters who do not follow the rules. If you are so worried about "infringing" on your Freedom of Speech, you are welcome to take it back to the Democratic Underground.

(2) 9sublime has showed you where you implied that palerider was a pedophile. Though you did not explicity call him one, that was clearly your intent and intent matters a lot.

(3) Palerider calling top gun "top dog" and goading him for not substantiating his posts does not constitute breaking any rules. The Moderators here prefer debating out in the forums to moderating and wasting ouir time with people making petty, ideology-driven complaints.

Everyone needs to relax. We're just talking politics on a stupid internet forum. It's okay to be civil.

 

[palerider]

You're not a Republican? You know, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

Shallow and flawed thinking. Should I be surprised?

 

[palerider]

This is innapropriate and I am giving you a warning for it. Arguing about ideology is fine, but do not accuse another member of personally being a pedophile.

If I am allowed, may I ask that the warning be rescinded. Placing an opponent on the horns of a false dilemma is both a childish logical fallacy and a prime indicator of very shallow thinking; and it illustrates exactly how shaky his position is. On top of all that, he really doesn't need to have a warning mark against him as well.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Sorry, palerider. His comment was over the line. It's only a warning and the mark against him will expire in 9 days.

 

[palerider]

"Authoritarian" views are certainly not liberal views, they are a trait of conservative ideology.

I may be wasting my time, but I am prepared to enter into a genuine grown up philosophical conversation with you to demonstrate beyond a doubt that liberalism is indeed authoritarian in nature.

Are you up to a grown up discussion or is the juvenile spew that you have posted so far the best you have?

 

[palerider]

Coyote,

Was 17 the age of consent in DC at the time that studds was invoved with the boy or did the age of consent change sometime between the time the relationship broke up and the investigation happened? Or was 17 the age of consent in the boy's home state?

 

[Coyote]

Coyote,

Was 17 the age of consent in DC at the time that studds was invoved with the boy or did the age of consent change sometime between the time the relationship broke up and the investigation happened?

Actually, I was wrong - it isn't seventeen. Sixteen is the legal age of consent sexual acts in the District of Columbia and has been since at least 1901 from what I can determine. I can not find evidence of it having changed.

Or was 17 the age of consent in the boy's home state?

In his home state, which I think is Massachussetts, sixteen is the “age of consent,” because sex with a person under sixteen is prohibited by MGL c.265 s.23.

 

[palerider]

Actually, I was wrong - it isn't seventeen. Sixteen is the legal age of consent sexual acts in the District of Columbia and has been since at least 1901 from what I can determine. I can not find evidence of it having changed.

From the DC statutes:

Subchapter I. General Provisions. (Refs & Annos)
§ 22-3001. Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter:

(10) "Significant relationship" includes:
(A) A parent, sibling, aunt, uncle, or grandparent, whether related by blood, marriage, or adoption;
(B) A legal or de facto guardian or any person, more than 4 years older than the victim, who resides intermittently or permanently in the same dwelling as the victim;
(C) The person or the spouse or paramour of the person who is charged with any duty or responsibility for the health, welfare, or supervision of the victim at the time of the act; and
(D) A teacher, scout master, coach, recreation center leader, or others in similar positions.


§ 22-3020. Aggravating circumstances.

(a) Any person who is found guilty of an offense under this subchapter may receive a penalty up to 1 1/2 times the maximum penalty prescribed for the particular offense, and may receive a sentence of more than 30 years up to, and including life imprisonment without possibility of release for first degree sexual abuse or first degree child sexual abuse, if any of the following aggravating circumstances exists:

(1) The victim was under the age of 12 years at the time of the offense;

(2) The victim was under the age of 18 years at the time of the offense and the actor had a significant relationship to the victim;

(3) The victim sustained serious bodily injury as a result of the offense;

(4) The defendant was aided or abetted by 1 or more accomplices;

(5) The defendant is or has been found guilty of committing sex offenses against 2 or more victims, whether in the same or other proceedings by a court of the District of Columbia, any state, or the United States or its territories; or

(6) The defendant was armed with, or had readily available, a pistol or other firearm (or imitation thereof) or other dangerous or deadly weapon.

(b) It is not necessary that the accomplices have been convicted for an increased punishment (or enhanced penalty) to apply under subsection (a)(4) of this section.

The statutes define "signifigant relationship" as:


Now I am no lawyer, but I believe that I could successfully argue that a US congressman to a congressional page constitutes at least as signifigant a relationship as between a recreation center leader and a child who comes to play some b-ball.

So Gerry Studds did break the law and did get a standing ovation from his fellow congressmen (I saw the video but have been unable to find it on the internet) on the floor of the house.

 

[Coyote]

From the DC statutes:

Now I am no lawyer, but I believe that I could successfully argue that a US congressman to a congressional page constitutes at least as signifigant a relationship as between a recreation center leader and a child who comes to play some b-ball.

So Gerry Studds did break the law and did get a standing ovation from his fellow congressmen (I saw the video but have been unable to find it on the internet) on the floor of the house.

I'm no lawyer either but I think that is a very vague area to make a call. This is not the same as a child and scout leader or a teacher. It was certainly highly inappropriate but illegal? More - it was clearly consenting and they stayed together until Studds died. If it was that clearly illegal you know darn well it would have been prosecuted. He should have resigned - same as Foley and same as others, but he didn't and his constituency supported him.

NAMBLA defines it's relationships as one with young boys, in fact 8 - 15 seems to be their goal if arrest records are anything to go by.

You are clearly stretching to make a case that the Democratic Party supports in any way the activities of NAMBLA. One could likewise claim the same of the Republicans since Foley's activities were known to the leadership for two years prior to being exposed in the media. So, is it only "wrong" once it becomes public?

I would be interested in any clear confirmation of "standing ovation". I can find no solid record of it except "hearsay" in blogs - it is not mentioned in wiki even though other insulting acts are by Stubbs towards Congress are and the fact that he recieved multiple ovations from his constituency.

There is plenty of corruption and scandal plaguing both major parties to make good cases from but I think in this you are wrong.