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

[ballz2wallz]

A great article asking 'where did all those 'it's just sex' democrats go from the time of the Clinton sex scandal; you know, the one where he was caught and refused to step down from office like FORMER representative Foley?

Where'd all the "It's Just Sex" Democrats Go?

The Seattle Times reports "House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi wants the House Ethics Committee to put Republican leadership under oath to find out what they knew about Congressman Mark Foley's inappropriate communications with Congressional pages."

In a statement, Minority Senate leader Harry Reid (D) described the allegations against Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) as 'repugnant.' "Equally as bad," the Nevada Democrat said, "is the possibility that Republican leaders in the House of Representatives knew there was a problem and ignored it to preserve a Congressional seat this election year."

Now wait a minute...

Then President Bill Clinton had not been sending inappropriate suggestive emails and instant messages to a young intern, an act certainly repugnant no matter the authors' politics. He had reduced the previously revered Oval Office, to just a personal sexually perverted play pen.

Democrats didn't sit silent as the news broke of Clinton's repeated and continuing sexual misconduct, they rushed to his defense with some dreamed up right-wing conspiracy theory intended to misdirect public attention away from Clinton's life-long sex addiction, throwing every person disgusted by his irresponsible conduct under the bus. They were not innocent bystanders, they were actively complicit, even enablers.

As Clinton wagged his finger in the nose of every American, assuring the world that he "did not have sex with that woman", he and his closest advisors knew better. As he sat under oath before a court committing outright perjury before a world-wide audience, Democrats stood firmly at his side, crying foul, insisting that any lie about sex isn't a lie at all really.

Even once Clinton was impeached and disbarred for perjury - Democrats insisted that none of this had anything to do with his ability to hold the highest office in the land. Many of those now seeking to make political hay out of Foley's disgracefully stupid indiscretions once blocked any effort to remove a convicted perjurer from the White House.

Foley certainly screwed up, BIG TIME! But he at least had the decency to resign, a decency neither Clinton himself nor his many Democrat supporters ever demonstrated. Now we are supposed to listen as Democrats try to cash-in on what can only be described as inappropriate sexual activities between consenting adults?

When former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey was busted cheating on his wife and family with a young male office assistant, Democrats again rushed to his side to defend his actions as that of a closet homosexual who did not deserve to be tossed from office on the basis of his sexual misconduct alone.

They kept him in office to avoid the mid-term appointment of a Republican Governor, buying time for the Party to come up with his Democrat replacement. That replacement was Senator John Corzine, who personally bought both his senate seat and the governorship with his own personal wealth.

Democrat Representative Barney Franks didn't get busted sending private messages to his boy friend - he was busted paying a male prostitute for services. He was busted while using his elected position of power to clear his boy friend from his felony past, with convictions for cocaine possession, oral sodomy and "production of obscene items involving a juvenile."

Again, Democrats across the country ran to defend Franks and make excuses for his perverted and irresponsible if not bizarre behaviors.

Yet today, we are to believe that these same Democrats are so upset by private email exchanges, that they must have a full-scale FBI investigation into not just Foley's personal misconduct, but every Republican in congress too?

Give me a BREAK!!! We're talking about Democrats here...

Democrats! - People who don't know the difference between innocent human life and a stomach tumor. People who declare that ALL sexual perversions be given equal status under the law and equal rights under the time-honored name of Marriage. People who have rushed to demand First Amendment protection of pornography, at the same time claiming that the bible has no such protections... Democrats...!

Any Republican who didn't call for Foley's resignation isn't a conservative. But for Democrats to try to capitalize on a republican SEX SCANDAL is hilarious! I mean we're talking about a Party that idolizes JFK and Clinton on the basis of their sexual prowess. A Party still led by gin-soaked Teddy Kennedy. Come on...

Today's Democrats aren't only shameless... They're STUPID!

Believing that they can buy votes with promises from the treasury is one thing. But believing they can capitalize on someone else's sexual misconduct is just plain insane...

Are you kidding me???

Foley should be finished... So should any politician looking to cash-in on Foley's follies, especially if they are a Democrat! Get out a here... I really have seen it all now!

"I deeply regret and accept full responsibility for the harm I have caused," Foley said.

Foley has already begun taking responsibility for his actions. Democrats never have and never will!

[ballz2wallz]

10. Sen. Daniel Inouye. The 82-year-old Hawaii Democrat was accused in the 1990s by numerous women of sexual harassment. Democrats cast doubt on the allegations and the Senate Ethics Committee dropped its investigation.

9. Former Rep. Gus Savage. The Illinois Democrat was accused of fondling a Peace Corps volunteer in 1989 while on a trip to Africa. The House Ethics Committee decided against disciplinary action in 1990.

8. Rep. Barney Frank. The outspoken Massachusetts Democrat hired a male prostitute who ran a prostitution service from Frank’s residence in the 1980s. Only two Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to censure him in 1990.

7. Former Sen. Brock Adams. The late Washington Democrat was forced to stop campaigning after numerous accusations of drugging, assault and rape, the first surfacing in 1988.

6. Former Rep. Fred Richmond. This New York Democrat was arrested in 1978 for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old. He remained in Congress and won re-election—before eventually resigning in 1982 after pleading guilty to tax evasion and drug possession.

5. Former Rep. John Young. The late Texas Democrat increased the salary of a staffer after she gave in to his sexual advances. The congressman won re-election in 1976 but lost two years later.

4. Former Rep. Wayne Hays. The late Ohio Democrat hired an unqualified secretary reportedly for sexual acts. Although he resigned from Congress, the Democratic House leadership stalled in removing him from the Administration Committee in 1976.

3. Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.

2. Former Rep. Mel Reynolds. The Illinois Democrat was convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault with a 16-year-old. President Bill Clinton pardoned him before leaving office.

1. Sen. Teddy Kennedy. The liberal Massachusetts senator testified in defense of nephew accused of rape, invoking his family history to win over the jury in 1991.

Top 10 List - HUMAN EVENTS : Top 10 Democrat Sex Scandals in Congress

[ballz2wallz]

I mean, afterall, "it's just sex" applies to anyone that's over 18, right?

But upon reviewing the records, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, the young man was in fact over the age of 18 at the time of the exchange.

DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2006®

[Scrum]

You guys must be shitting your pants with all these red herrings you are throwing out there.

Anything to try and deflect this to the other party.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I mean, afterall, "it's just sex" applies to anyone that's over 18, right?



DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2006®

Which one of the pages is this? There have been many.

Funny that all those in the house leadership, who knew about this, keeps falling all over themselves saying how they knew about his contact with a minor and even talked to the parents.

Why would they contact the parents if he were over 18?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

You guys must be shitting your pants with all these red herrings you are throwing out there.

Anything to try and deflect this to the other party.

We just look for consistency, that's all. I think it's repulsive that this was going on, and I think it's even more disgusting that he was after young boys. But now that it turns out that the boy was in fact 18, what gives with the Democrats jumping all over the place asking for 'investigations' of all sorts? Shouldn't they be the FIRST ones to say 'hey, it's ok, afterall, it's just sex with two consenting adults'? Shouldn't they be the tolerant ones? Especially considering that with all the sex scandals that they themselves have encountered and yet refused to take responsibility for, unlike Mr. Foley who immediately stepped down like he should have done?

And I would hardly call them 'red herrings', considering the age makes all the difference in the world!

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Which one of the pages is this? There have been many.

Funny that all those in the house leadership, who knew about this, keeps falling all over themselves saying how they knew about his contact with a minor and even talked to the parents.

Why would they contact the parents if he were over 18?

This was the main page whose story broke...

[avsp]

This does of course excuse Foley & vindicates any cover-up or lack of action by party officials who knew beforethe story broke, ..., doesnt it?

Are all the case you mention ones of male indiscretion/inappropriateness?

If so, why do you choose to see the issue as one of red v blue?

Believing that they can buy votes with promises from the treasury is one thing. But believing they can capitalize on someone else's sexual misconduct is just plain insane...

Why was the article written then? Why has it been quoted?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by avsp

If so, why do you choose to see the issue as one of red v blue?

To me, it's not:

I think it's repulsive that this was going on, and I think it's even more disgusting that he was after young boys.

But to the Democrats, it apparently is.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

And I would hardly call them 'red herrings', considering the age makes all the difference in the world!

You guys are throwing the kitchen sink at this, like you do everything and these excuses contradict each other.


Past scandals have nothing to do with this situation now. I know you would love to have things that happened 20 years ago matter, but unfortunatly it doesn't. Just because you neighbor steals, it doesn't make it ok for you to steal.

[ballz2wallz]

According to HotAir, the page was 17 and 18, as one of his messages indicates; it blatantly states he won't be turning 18 until Feb something:

Hot Air » Blog Archive » That Drudge headline is inaccurate

Sorry, folks. The teen in question was 17 during some of the chats and 18 during others. Go read this ABC News reprint of a couple of the IMs. The kid says in black and white a little over halfway down the page that he hasn’t reached his 18th birthday yet and wouldn’t “till feb 23.” That would make him 17. Both ages happen to be above DC’s age of consent law, so legally it would seem to me that Foley won’t be charged unless new information emerges.

Yeah, there’s a pretty strong chance of new information emerging. But not necessarily new information that places him in legal jeopardy.

Moral jeopardy is another matter. He’s in that to stay.

So are quite a few other people. The Republican leadership, perhaps. The dust hasn’t quite settled on that yet, but you can see a scenario in which Speaker Hastert falls on his sword and the next few weeks see the GOP in the House erupting in civil war to replace him. Or not, if cooler heads prevail and a successor emerges quickly. Or we could see Hastert hang on and attract “what and when did he know” stories for five more weeks. Whatever he does, that list–you know what I’m talking about–hangs over the party like a Sword of Damocles. There may be only one name on it. Or a hundred. Not knowing is what makes it so dangerous. So it probably won’t be published, at least for a while.

Whoever was behind the StopSexPredators fauxblog and the Kos diary that brought the faux blog to attention has some explaining to do, since there’s a good chance that that person or group sat on the IMs, thus protecting a potential predator, in order to achieve maximum political effect. It’s obvious that the blog was part of the plan. Using dKos was a shrewd move. Posting within 12 minutes on one site and then the other? Not so shrewd.

But most of all, the moral jeopardy is Mark Foley’s. Let’s not lose sight of that.

We’re finding out an ugly truth right now. Terrorists may yet nuke Washington one of these days, but for the time being they don’t have to. The city is perfectly capable of destroying itself.

It's important to note, however, that 17 is above the age of consent in DC.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

To me, it's not:

But to the Democrats, it apparently is.

Whilst accepting that you find Foleys behaviour 'disgusting'.

I'd just like to say, in light of many of your posts on this scandal. & especially in response to your comment 'To me, its not'

I am reknowned world-wide for my lucid use of the English language & only rarely mispell words.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

According to HotAir, the page was 17 and 18, as one of his messages indicates; it blatantly states he won't be turning 18 until Feb something:

Hot Air » Blog Archive » That Drudge headline is inaccurate

It's important to note, however, that 17 is above the age of consent in DC.

Too bad when you do this over the Internet local age of consent doesn't matter.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Too bad when you do this over the Internet local age of consent doesn't matter.

Which brings into question; where did all the 'it's just sex' democrats go?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Which brings into question; where did all the 'it's just sex' democrats go?

Keep trying to find a path through this shitstorm.
It's very entertaining.

I think all the 'it's just sex' Democrats are willing to abide by the sexual predator laws Foley helped write.

Unless of course you are advocating sex with minors? In particular from our lawmakers.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I think all the 'it's just sex' Democrats are willing to abide by the sexual predator laws Foley helped write.

Unless of course you are advocating sex with minors? In particular from our lawmakers.

Wait, but didn't we already establish that 1) it's online so it's not breaking the law (as you said) and 2) they are above the age of consent?

[thatguyoverthere]

:little guy rolling over and laughing:

"B-B-But, CLINTON..." "B-B-But, KENNEDY..." "B-B-but BARNEY FRANK...!!!"

You guys really must be scared to death. Every weak-ass "defense" of Foley on this forum seems to be "But they did it too! They're just as bad!" Wimps!

Man, if you honestly can't tell the difference between two consentual adults and a predatory pedophile... I can't help you on that one.

And keep on pitching the "18 is legal so it's okay." Yes. Keep on believing that. This guy resigned and the FBI is investigating and all this firestorm is because NONE of them can COUNT. Yes, that's perfectly logical and plausable. Keep on that story, it will be all that much sweeter if y'all have to end up eating your words.

The saddest part is that some people here seem so desperate to put the Democrats on defensive and ignore the real story right in front of everyone's eyes. With every keystroke, with every cut and paste, with every click of your mouse, all your physical and mental effort is going to defend a pedophile!

Time to man up and accept that the leadership of your party screwed up. Stop offering excuses, Clintonesque legal parsing, and finger pointing.

Accept some responsibility, demand some accountability, choose your battles, and admit that it's not worth your time or effort to minimize the crimes of this sick man or the monumentally bad judgement of the Republican leaders.

Or you can keep on denying reality and looking like fools. People aren't buying the bullshit from your side any longer.

[WickedLou9]

Ballz has lost his mind.