Where did all the "It's just sex" Democrats go? - Page 6

ballz2wallz · 10-05-2006, 04:50 PM

Oh look, CBS news is being really sly:

ballz2wallz · 10-05-2006, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Nevermind them.

What Foley did was fine then.

Can you please post on this subject. The "well the other guys do it too!!" excuse is wearing thin and really holds no bearing on the current situation.

Since I started the thread, and the thread is on the hypocrisy of the Democratic party and their desires to practically bring down the Republican leadership over it, it's very relevant.

ballz2wallz · 10-05-2006, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Morals is a subjective thing open to interpretation by individuals. I'm sure those people who are members of NAMBLA feel they are morally doing nothing wrong, even if society disagrees..

Are you seriously suggesting the Clintons found nothing wrong with his actions?

motivez · 10-05-2006, 04:54 PM

Until they post the full header of that email, the address listed means nothing.

I can make an email look like it's coming from GWBush@whitehouse.gov and so can anyone else. I'm not going to say it's fake, but more evidence is needed before that means anything.

Only then can we discuss this guys position and whether or not what he said in the email means anything as it relates to CBS

ie:

Your search - "Vincent Cammisa" CBS - did not match any documents.

motivez · 10-05-2006, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Are you seriously suggesting the Clintons found nothing wrong with his actions?

Nope.

Scrum · 10-05-2006, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

I believe him to be, but I have no hard evidence to show why.

If he isn't, it should be or all age of consent laws should be made the same age from state to state and they range from 14 to the age of 18.

Once again, here's a listing of age of consent laws from state to state:

LEGAL AGE OF CONSENT (ageofconsent.com) Age du consentement à l’acte sexuel

This only applies to over the internet situations. If you like in, lets make this up, Maine and the legal age of consent is 14 (just for this example) you can go to maine and meet up with a nice 14 year old and do what you want.

But if you live in Indiana, where the legal age is 18. Now you want to nail a 14 year old from Indiana so you meet them online and arange a meeting in Maine where you can legally do it. That's not the case.

You can't hook up online with a minor for sex. Bottom line. Foley was one of the people making these laws. They just passed a big one a few months ago.

DosEquis · 10-05-2006, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Are you seriously suggesting the Clintons found nothing wrong with his actions?

I dont think anyone has said what clinton did was right.

There is a fundamental difference in what they did. Both are questionable in morals, but at least one boy was 16 and gay. Thats two strikes if you are trying to appeal to the "moral majority"

ballz2wallz · 10-05-2006, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Until they post the full header of that email, the address listed means nothing.

I can make an email look like it's coming from GWBush@whitehouse.gov and so can anyone else. I'm not going to say it's fake, but more evidence is needed before that means anything.

Only then can we discuss this guys position and whether or not what he said in the email means anything as it relates to CBS

ie:

From The CBS Mailbag | Redstate

motivez · 10-05-2006, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

From The CBS Mailbag | Redstate

I know, I went there. They haven't posted the full header information.

ballz2wallz · 10-05-2006, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I dont think anyone has said what clinton did was right.

Except that motivez is suggesting that morals are subjective, and what's morally right/wrong to one is not necessarily morally right/wrong to another. Now why would he say such a thing if it in fact had no relevance to the Clinton fiasco being morally wrong?

motivez · 10-05-2006, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Except that motivez is suggesting that morals are subjective, and what's morally right/wrong to one is not necessarily morally right/wrong to another. Now why would he say such a thing if it in fact had no relevance to the Clinton fiasco being morally wrong?

It's pretty simply explained in almost every single one of my posts thus far

Diamond Cross · 10-05-2006, 05:03 PM

Morals are relative from group to group, even among those who argue absolute morality.

But here's a few Congressmen that are more relevant to the issue than Former Presidnet Clinton:

Barney Frank - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1981 to present. Admitted to having paid Stephen L. Gobie, a male prostitute, for sex and subsequently hiring Gobie as his personal assistant. Gobie used the congressman's Washington apartment for prostitution. A move to expel Frank from the House of Representatives failed and a motion to censure him failed.

Gerry Eastman Studds - Democrat - U.S. Representative from Massachusetts from 1973 to 1997. The first openly gay member of Congress. Censured by the House of Representatives for having sexual relations with a teenage House page.

Frederick Richmond - Democrat - U.S. Representative from New York from 1975 to 1982. Arrested in Washington, D.C., in 1978 for soliciting sex from a minor and from an undercover police officer - pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Also - charged with tax evasion, marijuana possession, and improper payments to a federal employee - pleaded guilty.

Neil Goldschmidt - Democrat - Oregon governor. Admitted to having an illegal sexual relationship with a 14-year-old teenager while he was serving as Mayor of Portland.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 10-05-2006, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Morals is a subjective thing open to interpretation by individuals. I'm sure those people who are members of NAMBLA feel they are morally doing nothing wrong, even if society disagrees..

So, while you can argue all day whether or not what Clinton did is wrong, or "as bad", you're never going to come to an agreement because people are going to interpret the situation based on their personal beliefs rather than some standard.

That can't be said for the legal ramifications for what Republican Congressman Mark Foley has done.

That's a good point, except no one knows whether what Foley did was illegal yet. So you're putting yourself in a trap there because if he's exculpated your own logic means you'll have to concede Clinton was worse because Clinton actully did something illegal, whereas Foley didn't (in that hypothetical), and you're saying legality is the ultimate arbiter here.

I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket.

ballz2wallz · 10-05-2006, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

That's a good point, except no one knows whether what Foley did was illegal yet. So you're putting yourself in a trap there because if he's exculpated your own logic means you'll have to concede Clinton was worse because Clinton actully did something illegal, whereas Foley didn't (in that hypothetical), and you're saying legality is the ultimate arbiter here.

I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket.

We were waiting for it...you ruined it!

Scrum · 10-05-2006, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

That's a good point, except no one knows whether what Foley did was illegal yet. So you're putting yourself in a trap there because if he's exculpated your own logic means you'll have to concede Clinton was worse because Clinton actully did something illegal, whereas Foley didn't (in that hypothetical), and you're saying legality is the ultimate arbiter here.

I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket.

Clinton did nothing illegal in regards to what went on with his personal life.

motivez · 10-05-2006, 05:14 PM

Uhm, I don't condone lying about incidents and have no problem with saying Clinton shouldn't have lied about what happened in order to protect his political career .. it only turned out bad for him in that respect.

I also don't care what two consenting adults do as far as IM's, blowjobs, etc.. whether straight, gay, or whatever. That's not the case here though, at least according to all knowledge we have so far. If it turns out I'm wrong, so be it.

This is about the logic of comparing the two situations.. nothing more.

ballz2wallz · 10-05-2006, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Uhm, I don't condone lying about incidents and have no problem with saying Clinton shouldn't have lied about what happened in order to protect his political career .. it only turned out bad for him in that respect.

I also don't care what two consenting adults do as far as IM's, blowjobs, etc.. whether straight, gay, or whatever. That's not the case here though, at least according to all knowledge we have so far. If it turns out I'm wrong, so be it.

This is about the logic of comparing the two situations.. nothing more.

Do you care about him doing something morally wrong? And if Foley isn't charged with doing anything illegal, he too will be accused of nothing but doing something morally wrong. Then what? Are they good comparisons then?

motivez · 10-05-2006, 05:20 PM

I don't see what Clinton did as far as the sex as anything I should care about honestly. That's between him, his wife, and Lewinsky.

I think there's still a case to be made about whether or not Republican Congressman Mark Foley abused his position in Congress to gain access to young boys, and whether or not that's appropriate, but if he did nothing illegal, than he did nothing illegal.

So far that doesn't seem to be the case, though.. and the fact that there's been multiple incidents of this going back as far as 10 years says a lot, IMO.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 10-05-2006, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

We were waiting for it...you ruined it!

arguing over the internets is serious strategic business.