Gop

Rushlimbo

GOP = Grand Ole Pedophiles. Sick bastards.

monkey spanker

hypocritical much???? the last time a major sex scandal broke involving a house page, it was a Democrat in the eye of the storm. Just to put things in historical perspective, back in 1983 Democrat Rep. Jerry Studds of Massachusetts admitted to having actual sex (not cyber-sex on a Blackberry, which hadn’t been invented by Al Gore yet) with a 17-year-old page. The House Ethics Committee in the Democrat-controlled Congress decided to give “Studdly” just a reprimand. a reprimand. a freaking reprimand.

paisley

There's an instructor where I go to school that has a bumper sticker on his/her Intrepid that says "GOP= Grand Oil Party."

paisley

monkey spanker wrote:

hypocritical much???? the last time a major sex scandal broke involving a house page, it was a Democrat in the eye of the storm. Just to put things in historical perspective, back in 1983 Democrat Rep. Jerry Studds of Massachusetts admitted to having actual sex (not cyber-sex on a Blackberry, which hadn’t been invented by Al Gore yet) with a 17-year-old page. The House Ethics Committee in the Democrat-controlled Congress decided to give “Studdly” just a reprimand. a reprimand. a freaking reprimand.

17, like 16, is the age of concent, no?

hippiemom

monkey spanker wrote:

hypocritical much???? the last time a major sex scandal broke involving a house page, it was a Democrat in the eye of the storm. Just to put things in historical perspective, back in 1983 Democrat Rep. Jerry Studds of Massachusetts admitted to having actual sex (not cyber-sex on a Blackberry, which hadn’t been invented by Al Gore yet) with a 17-year-old page. The House Ethics Committee in the Democrat-controlled Congress decided to give “Studdly” just a reprimand. a reprimand. a freaking reprimand.

That was 23 years ago. Most of the current House was not there in 1983. Most of the people on this board were children at the time (many weren't even born yet), so it's understandable that they weren't terribly irate about what was going on in Washington. Can we please stick with things that are relevant?

Rushlimbo

monkey spanker wrote:

hypocritical much???? the last time a major sex scandal broke involving a house page, it was a Democrat in the eye of the storm. Just to put things in historical perspective, back in 1983 Democrat Rep. Jerry Studds of Massachusetts admitted to having actual sex (not cyber-sex on a Blackberry, which hadn’t been invented by Al Gore yet) with a 17-year-old page. The House Ethics Committee in the Democrat-controlled Congress decided to give “Studdly” just a reprimand. a reprimand. a freaking reprimand.

That happened long ago when I was ripe pickings for Foley and his elders. But I guess to you this would just even things out and everyone should just brush it aside as if it never happened.

DOSW

I find it ironic that the Democratic party is actually older than the "grand old party." Morons.

Milhouse VanHouten

monkey spanker wrote:

hypocritical much???? the last time a major sex scandal broke involving a house page, it was a Democrat in the eye of the storm. Just to put things in historical perspective, back in 1983 Democrat Rep. Jerry Studds of Massachusetts admitted to having actual sex (not cyber-sex on a Blackberry, which hadn’t been invented by Al Gore yet) with a 17-year-old page. The House Ethics Committee in the Democrat-controlled Congress decided to give “Studdly” just a reprimand. a reprimand. a freaking reprimand.

Guess who else recieved nothing more than "a freaking reprimand" (more accurately, a censure) from a Democrat-controlled Congress that year? Congressman Dan Crane, an Illinois Republican, who also admitted to having a sexual relationship. His was with a 17-year old female page.

If you knew about Studds, I'm guessing you knew about Crane, too, but you failed to mention it in your post.

Hypocritical much?

jeffbr

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

Guess who else recieved nothing more than "a freaking reprimand" (more accurately, a censure) from a Democrat-controlled Congress that year? Congressman Dan Crane, an Illinois Republican, who also admitted to having a sexual relationship. His was with a 17-year old female page.

If you knew about Studds, I'm guessing you knew about Crane, too, but you failed to mention it in your post.

Hypocritical much?

Gary Condit was a real peach, too.

rigneyclan

http://www.bartcop.com/pack-duck.jpg

world

If you dont think that both the Republicans and Democrats are full of sick bastards, then your retarded.


-

eden

world wrote:

If you dont think that both the Republicans and Democrats are full of sick bastards, then your retarded.


-

Agreed.

Kindof a weak argument when we all know what pervs Clinton and
Kennedy were. I read once that JFK was such a sex addict that he had to have it 3 times a day with diferrent women every time.

jlew24asu

hippiemom wrote:

That was 23 years ago. Most of the current House was not there in 1983. Most of the people on this board were children at the time (many weren't even born yet), so it's understandable that they weren't terribly irate about what was going on in Washington. Can we please stick with things that are relevant?

I dont understand how its not relevant. it was 23 years ago, so it shouldnt matter? so in twenty years foley should get a pass? he trying to make the point that being a pedohile isnt a "republican" problem. today, it is. historically? sickos stand on both sides of the aisle.

hippiemom

jlew24asu wrote:

I dont understand how its not relevant. it was 23 years ago, so it shouldnt matter? so in twenty years foley should get a pass? he trying to make the point that being a pedohile isnt a "republican" problem. today, it is. historically? sickos stand on both sides of the aisle.

No, being a pedophile isn't a republican problem. The question is whether or not the republican leadership knew they had a pedophile in their midst and chose to cover it up. That is a current question, and what happened 23 years ago isn't relevant. If current members now calling for Hastert's head were around back then trying to cover up for Studds, THAT would be relevant and I think most everyone would want to hear about that.

The next time the democrats are involved in a scandal I promise not to say "But what about Watergate?! What about Iran-Contra?!" because those won't be any more relevant than this 23 year-old story is today, unless the same cast of characters is involved.

PaperPlates

hippiemom wrote:

No, being a pedophile isn't a republican problem. The question is whether or not the republican leadership knew they had a pedophile in their midst and chose to cover it up. That is a current question, and what happened 23 years ago isn't relevant. If current members now calling for Hastert's head were around back then trying to cover up for Studds, THAT would be relevant and I think most everyone would want to hear about that.

The next time the democrats are involved in a scandal I promise not to say "But what about Watergate?! What about Iran-Contra?!" because those won't be any more relevant than this 23 year-old story is today, unless the same cast of characters is involved.

we plan on holding you to that. I hope the others around here will be as "big" as you.

hippiemom

PaperPlates wrote:

we plan on holding you to that. I hope the others around here will be as "big" as you.

I can assure you I will have NO PROBLEM keeping that promise! I'm so damn sick of the whole system we have here. I'm only marginally less disgusted by the democrats than I am by the republicans. It's such an artificial dividing line anyway. Most politicians get their start at the local level, and they join whichever party will give them money and a spot on the ballot. If you want to be a councilman, and a republican councilman is retiring that year and the republicans need a replacement, then that's it, you're a republican! From there you're off an running, and a republican you shall forever be.

There are some true believers in each party, but most of them are simply opportunists who got their start in party politics exactly as I've described. I've seen it happen time and time again. I know a local judge who is a democrat at heart, but ran as a republican because the local democratic party wanted to put a black candidate in that spot. I know a state rep who is a republican at heart but ran as a democrat because he lives in a heavily democratic district. I know another guy who is a republican only because his last name is powerful in republican circles, thanks to his father. I could go on and on with stories like this. The parties are just a fundraising scheme, and there are few candidates who give a rats ass about the ideals their party claims to espouse. What they care about is getting elected. Anyone who has any loyalty based on party affiliation is very naive about the whole process, in my opinion.