Page said he had sex with foley...
10-08-2006, 10:21 PM
#1
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Least Coast :(
Posts: 8,159
Car Info: 08 sti
Page said he had sex with foley...
So there goes the whole "phone sex" bull**** if this is true..
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/WNT/story?id=2541690&page=1
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/WNT/story?id=2541690&page=1
10-09-2006, 01:07 AM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,556
Originally Posted by ipozestu
Dre, your infatuation with this is really beginning to concern me.
What you feel its ok for this to happen? Ahh the MORAL right not caring that a felony has happened and the MORAL right tried to shove it under the covers!
Nothing to see here move along!
10-09-2006, 09:31 AM
#4
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Originally Posted by Unregistered
What you feel its ok for this to happen? Ahh the MORAL right not caring that a felony has happened and the MORAL right tried to shove it under the covers!
Nothing to see here move along!
Nothing to see here move along!
Originally Posted by ABC Story
The latest headline to grip Capitol Hill comes from the Los Angeles Times: A former House page tells the paper anonymously that former Rep. Mark Foley's online flirtation led to sex in the lawmaker's Washington townhouse when the young man was 21.
10-09-2006, 09:34 AM
#5
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Go look up Congressman Studds record.
here's an except7t:
here's an except7t:
Originally Posted by The Standard
IN 1983, REPRESENTATIVE GERRY Studds, Democrat of Massachusetts, admitted to having sex with a 17-year-old male page. He was censured by the House of Representatives.
During the vote, which he was compelled by House rules to be present for, Studds turned his back on the House to show his contempt for his colleagues' reprimand.
He was not expelled from the Democratic Caucus.
In fact, he was his party's nominee in the next election in his district--and the next five after that--winning reelection each time.
He remained in the bosom of the Democratic Caucus in the House for the next 13 years.
During the vote, which he was compelled by House rules to be present for, Studds turned his back on the House to show his contempt for his colleagues' reprimand.
He was not expelled from the Democratic Caucus.
In fact, he was his party's nominee in the next election in his district--and the next five after that--winning reelection each time.
He remained in the bosom of the Democratic Caucus in the House for the next 13 years.
10-09-2006, 11:30 AM
#6
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
I still don't understand why the Dems and the left are suggesting gay relations are immoral. If they were smart they'd sit back and welcome Foley's demise from his own party.
10-09-2006, 02:33 PM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,556
Originally Posted by Salty
I still don't understand why the Dems and the left are suggesting gay relations are immoral. If they were smart they'd sit back and welcome Foley's demise from his own party.
Where do you come up with this stuff? When did the Dem's say a gay relations are immoral? Don't be retarded Salty. They said that Foley going after minors is immoral. Do not confuse the two.
10-09-2006, 02:35 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,556
Originally Posted by Paul@dbtuned
Go look up Congressman Studds record.
here's an except7t:
here's an except7t:
Your point? What does that have to do with anything? The democratic party never painted itself as the moral leaders of the US. **** the democratic party is the party that supports gay marriage.
10-09-2006, 05:46 PM
#10
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Least Coast :(
Posts: 8,159
Car Info: 08 sti
Originally Posted by Salty
I still don't understand why the Dems and the left are suggesting gay relations are immoral. If they were smart they'd sit back and welcome Foley's demise from his own party.
Which camp did the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage come from again?
The religious right and its *****es (the gop) are all about *** hating...
So i find it funny when all of a sudden half this forum is sporting celebrate diveristy flair in their posts..
You guys are truely ****ing wastes of protein, the least you could ****ing do is acknowledge your contradictions. Instead you try to pawn them off..
A++ to you ***s
10-09-2006, 05:50 PM
#11
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Least Coast :(
Posts: 8,159
Car Info: 08 sti
Originally Posted by Paul@dbtuned
How's this a felony?
§ 22-3502. Sodomy.
(a) Every person who shall be convicted of taking into his or her mouth or anus the sexual organ of any other person or animal, or who shall be convicted of placing his or her sexual organ in the mouth or anus of any other person or animal, or who shall be convicted of having carnal copulation in an opening of the body except sexual parts with another person, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or be imprisoned for a period not exceeding 10 years. Any person convicted under this section of committing such act with a person under the age of 16 years shall be fined not more than $1,000 or be imprisoned for a period not exceeding 20 years. And in any indictment for the commission of any of the acts, hereby declared to be offenses, it shall not be necessary to set forth the particular unnatural or perverted sexual practice with the commission of which the defendant may be charged, nor to set forth the particular manner in which said unnatural or perverted sexual practice was committed, but it shall be sufficient if the indictment set forth that the defendant committed a certain unnatural and perverted sexual practice with a person or animal, as the case may be: Provided, that the accused, on motion, shall be entitled to be furnished with a bill of particulars, setting forth the particular acts which constitute the offense charged.
(b) Any penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime specified in this section. Proof of emission shall not be necessary. (June 9, 1948, 62 Stat. 347, ch. 428, title I, § 104; 1973 Ed., § 22-3502.)
now stfu.. and stop contradicting yourself in posts on this forum...
In the other foley thread you stated that you knew it was a felony.. and now you are saying the exact opposite..
MAKE UP YOUR ****ING MIND IDIOT
10-09-2006, 09:02 PM
#12
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by dr3d1zzl3
because that is what the republicans have said and done over and over again..
Which camp did the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage come from again?
The religious right and its *****es (the gop) are all about *** hating...
So i find it funny when all of a sudden half this forum is sporting celebrate diveristy flair in their posts..
You guys are truely ****ing wastes of protein, the least you could ****ing do is acknowledge your contradictions. Instead you try to pawn them off..
A++ to you ***s
Which camp did the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage come from again?
The religious right and its *****es (the gop) are all about *** hating...
So i find it funny when all of a sudden half this forum is sporting celebrate diveristy flair in their posts..
You guys are truely ****ing wastes of protein, the least you could ****ing do is acknowledge your contradictions. Instead you try to pawn them off..
A++ to you ***s
We all know where the Republican party stands which is irrelevant. Instead, Liberals and Democrats seem to be going after a guy that's guilty (thus far) being a homo trying to cover it up. Wtf?
Last edited by Salty; 10-09-2006 at 09:05 PM.
10-09-2006, 09:10 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,556
Originally Posted by Salty
You're missing the point once again!
We all know where the Republican party stands which is irrelevant. Instead, Liberals and Democrats seem to be going after a guy that's guilty (thus far) being a homo trying to cover it up. Wtf?
We all know where the Republican party stands which is irrelevant. Instead, Liberals and Democrats seem to be going after a guy that's guilty (thus far) being a homo trying to cover it up. Wtf?
See thats where you are wrong. The Democrats are going after a guy that went after a child. Yes a child, no matter what Oaf says, by law. The fact that the MORAL right tried to hide it for around three years (possibly longer than that) I believe is also a main reason. Where did you think being gay came up in this for the Democrats? In fact I don't think that matters at all. Had it been a Republican who was striaght going after underage tail it would still be the samething. You are the one fixated on the fact that he is gay. Get it straight. The only role that being gay plays is the fact that he is in a party that historically disapproves of gay rights such as marriage. Which is ironic.
10-09-2006, 11:12 PM
#14
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Listen, I'm in no way trying to defend the guy. I think he's a sick SOB regardless. If he had relations with this guy in D.C. at sixteen, then it's not a legality issue but rather a morality issue. Dre's point on sodomy is weak.
The only issue here should be why the **** people kept it secret. The Republican party should have told him to step down a long time ago. It's a ****ing mess in that respect. The legality issue dre keeps feeding us is groundless (thus far).
And there IS a sense of truth to this, Unregistered. A Democrat or Republican lawmaker pursuing boys is bad period. Your career is over. But the Democratic party would - without question - defend the rights of a 40yr old gay man with a 16yr old gay male in DC. That's where the Republican party differs for the most part and why it seems like going against Foley is homo-witch hunt for the sake of exposing a Repiblican.
The only issue here should be why the **** people kept it secret. The Republican party should have told him to step down a long time ago. It's a ****ing mess in that respect. The legality issue dre keeps feeding us is groundless (thus far).
And there IS a sense of truth to this, Unregistered. A Democrat or Republican lawmaker pursuing boys is bad period. Your career is over. But the Democratic party would - without question - defend the rights of a 40yr old gay man with a 16yr old gay male in DC. That's where the Republican party differs for the most part and why it seems like going against Foley is homo-witch hunt for the sake of exposing a Repiblican.
Last edited by Salty; 10-09-2006 at 11:20 PM.
10-09-2006, 11:44 PM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,556
Originally Posted by Salty
Listen, I'm in no way trying to defend the guy. I think he's a sick SOB regardless. If he had relations with this guy in D.C. at sixteen, then it's not a legality issue but rather a morality issue. Dre's point on sodomy is weak.
Originally Posted by Salty
The only issue here should be why the **** people kept it secret. The Republican party should have told him to step down a long time ago. It's a ****ing mess in that respect. The legality issue dre keeps feeding us is groundless (thus far).
Originally Posted by Salty
And there IS a sense of truth to this, Unregistered. A Democrat or Republican lawmaker pursuing boys is bad period. Your career is over. But the Democratic party would - without question - defend the rights of a 40yr old gay man with a 16yr old gay male in DC. That's where the Republican party differs for the most part and why it seems like going against Foley is homo-witch hunt for the sake of exposing a Repiblican.