Liberal hypocrisy; Studds vs. Foley

ballz2wallz · 10-16-2006, 09:30 AM

The latest in the beautiful story that is unfolding.

Studds, dies at 69 last week, had a sexual encounter with a 17 yr old boy, and is praised by the left.

On the other hand, we have a recent situation some 20 yrs later in which Foley merely flirts with a 17 yr old, and all hell breaks loose.

Can someone explain this? This guy can.

WickedLou9 · 10-16-2006, 09:51 AM

Because the GOP is typically anti-gay, and to have one of it's own do something like that upset alot of the GOP's members. The Dem's have been more open minded and homosexuality is not a big issue for them.
When the foley issue happened the Dems saw a chance to really push it and create unrest in the GOP consituency because they just aren't comfortable with homosexuality. It worked.

It's also not quite the same.. Studds had one 'relationship' with a male house page that was consentual. Foley was repeatedly making unwanted sexual advances with many male house pages. One might call that sexual harrasement.

Thorgrim · 10-16-2006, 10:50 AM

So this comes down to "my party of values may have a sexual predator, but the other ones have done worse!

"

Studds didn't have an encounter, he had a relationship with one man, and that man never claimed he was preyed on

Foley had kids complaining to all kinds of GOP leaders that it was "sick sick sick"

The guy who had homosexual sex with Studds was willing and didn't regret it, I believe he was 17 and just turning 18.

The Democrats problem with Foley is that 1) he stalked at least half a dozen boys 2) he's a hypocrit 3) there was a coverup

None of that happened with Studds, and he had every right to turn his back on Congress during his censure

But why do you guys constantly have to live in at least 2-4 decades ago? If it's not the 1960s its the 1980s...hey, its 2006, talk about Jefferson or something

Stylerod · 10-16-2006, 11:04 AM

If there isn't a rule about politicians making advances or trying to have relationships with pages or interns or whoever, there needs to be.

JaJae · 10-16-2006, 11:33 AM

Studds is dead. It's PC to say nice things about him. I don't have a problem with it really, it is kinda strange how far people are going out of their way to praise him though...

7960 · 10-16-2006, 11:37 AM

I keep laughing when politicians talk about him in that "he's dead so we should say something nice...what's a neutral thing to say...hmm, how about 'he was good for the environment'!!!"

read these

... his gay husband (duh) and the other gay rep from mass commented on gay issues. The rest are "he was great for the fishing industry!!!"

Worcester Telegram & Gazette AP State News

ballz2wallz · 10-16-2006, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Studds is dead. It's PC to say nice things about him. I don't have a problem with it really, it is kinda strange how far people are going out of their way to praise him though...

:rly:

Tell that to Olbermann when talking about Lidle...

Donkey® · 10-16-2006, 11:51 AM

Democrats are already sinners and heathens so when they act like sinners and heathens, it doesn't matter. But when the Holiest of the Holy Republicans (at least that's how they portray themselves) act like a heathen and a sinner, that's what the issue is.

ballz2wallz · 10-16-2006, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Democrats are already sinners and heathens so when they act like sinners and heathens, it doesn't matter. But when the Holiest of the Holy Republicans (at least that's how they portray themselves) act like a heathen and a sinner, that's what the issue is.

'They already suck so we shouldn't expect anything better of them, but when the GOP messes up, it really disappoints everyone, so they need to pay'

Great party you support there

JaJae · 10-16-2006, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Democrats are already sinners and heathens so when they act like sinners and heathens, it doesn't matter. But when the Holiest of the Holy Republicans (at least that's how they portray themselves) act like a heathen and a sinner, that's what the issue is.

Could be why this is the case:

About 10 years ago a Democrat did essentially the same thing. Only the girl was 16. Nobody cared. He was actually having sex with her though. Was paying her. Gave her his pager number and apartment key. And had plotted a group sex fiasco with a 15 year old.

Yes it was 10 years ago, but it really puts this whole Foley thing into perspective. When one party does it, it's news. When the other does it.. ehh not so much.

Donkey® · 10-16-2006, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

'They already suck so we shouldn't expect anything better of them, but when the GOP messes up, it really disappoints everyone, so they need to pay'

Great party you support there

I don't support either of those idiot parties.

Scrum · 10-16-2006, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I don't support either of those idiot parties.

You don't like Bush, so you are automatically a liberal Democrat.

Didn't you get the memo?

Thorgrim · 10-16-2006, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Democrats are already sinners and heathens so when they act like sinners and heathens, it doesn't matter. But when the Holiest of the Holy Republicans (at least that's how they portray themselves) act like a heathen and a sinner, that's what the issue is.

I'd never run it in a campaign ad, but basically yes

Thorgrim · 10-16-2006, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Could be why this is the case:

About 10 years ago a Democrat did essentially the same thing. Only the girl was 16. Nobody cared. He was actually having sex with her though. Was paying her. Gave her his pager number and apartment key. And had plotted a group sex fiasco with a 15 year old.

Yes it was 10 years ago, but it really puts this whole Foley thing into perspective. When one party does it, it's news. When the other does it.. ehh not so much.

You need to realize that Democrats didn't sell themselves to the religious right...I actually expect my democratic congressman to have moral failings, if he cheats on his wife...ok, fine, even if breaks local laws

Give him a stern warning, ok

However, to equate the GOP and Dems...cmon I don't really need to have this discussion

ballz2wallz · 10-16-2006, 01:56 PM

This whole notion that Democrats aren't held to moral accountability becuase they're not expected to be moral to begin with sounds so preposterous; it's humorous just watching you say it.

Thorgrim · 10-16-2006, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

This whole notion that Democrats aren't held to moral accountability becuase they're not expected to be moral to begin with sounds so preposterous; it's humorous just watching you say it.

They shouldn't be held to high christian morality...and if so...why?

WickedLou9 · 10-16-2006, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

They shouldn't be held to high christian morality...and if so...why?

There are plenty of democrats that are Christian and that hold themselves to a Christian moral standard.

Donkey® · 10-16-2006, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

This whole notion that Democrats aren't held to moral accountability becuase they're not expected to be moral to begin with sounds so preposterous; it's humorous just watching you say it.

They ARE held to moral accountability. The point is they don't say "We are morally superior to the Republicans" and then get caught trying to fuck boys.

ballz2wallz · 10-16-2006, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

They shouldn't be held to high christian morality...and if so...why?

Why are only Christians held to moral standards? I would hate to think that morals belong solely to Christians.

ballz2wallz · 10-16-2006, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

They ARE held to moral accountability. The point is they don't say "We are morally superior to the Republicans" and then get caught trying to fuck boys.

So they just say 'we are morally inferior to Republicans' then get caught...no, actually DO fuck boys.

and then everyone is like 'oh, well they're inferior, so it's ok'.