CNN Hails Gay 'Pioneer' Barney Frank During Softball Interview on 'Sea Change' for Gay Marriage
After the news broke of the First Circuit Court declaring the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, CNN hosted openly-gay Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and asked him softball questions like "are you heartened to see that?"
The entire interview lasted over 12 minutes, a very long time on cable news, but only a part of it focused on DOMA. Anchor Suzanne Malveaux painted a positive picture for supporters of same-sex marriage, touting a "sea-change" on the issue in America. [Video below the break. Audio here.]
"You were really a pioneer as openly-gay in Congress. Did you ever imagine that it would gain so much support, that you'd be still in Congress and you see this kind of change happening?" Malveaux teed up Frank.
Unsurprisingly, no supporter of DOMA was brought on during the news hour to provide the other side of the debate.
CNN also had some sweet words for the congressman recently, in the wake of President Obama publicly supporting same-sex marriage, when Frank showed off his engagement ring to the CNN audience.
A transcript of Malveaux's questions to Frank is as follows:
SUZANNE MALVEAUX: Congressman, thank you for joining us. First of all, I do want to get your thoughts on a story that just broke, regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. Today a federal appeals court in Massachusetts ruled the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. The law defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and the court says that that act discriminates against same-sex couples. Is this part of a sea change, do you think, that is taking place in this country? When you look at that are you heartened to see that?
MALVEAUX: So Congressman, what do you make of what's happened here? Because there does seem to be a sea change regarding same-sex marriage. President Obama coming out in support of it. You were really a pioneer as openly-gay in Congress. Did you ever imagine that it would gain so much support, that you'd be still in Congress and you see this kind of change happening?
MALVEAUX: Do you fear that there will be a backlash? We've heard from several pastors of churches throughout the country, really some fiery rhetoric. Some of them even threatening to kill gay people in the community. Is that a concern at all that we might see something like that?
- Matt Hadro's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Softball interview?
Submitted by Newsbubba on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 4:13pm.
Seems an appwopiate headwine for an article about Baaney Fwank.
What a disgusting ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 5:19pm.
pos.
And so is Bawney.
MD
Delete
Submitted by NOLAgirl on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 4:23pm.
Delete
"Pioneer?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 5:19pm.
"You were really a pioneer as openly-gay in Congress."
What was he, the first gay man in America or something? Talk about false accolades!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Cobra
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 6:56pm.
They even have to lie about Bawney. The first openly gay Congressman was his Taxachusetts "buddy" Gerry Studds. I guess they can't mention him since he anally raped an underage Congressional Page, and was given a standing ovation on the floor of the House after being censured.
Also no mention of Bawney's boyfriend running a rectal whore service in the basement of his house.
Tugboat, are you confused about the definitions of "rape",
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 9:05pm.
"statutory rape" "consensual sex" and "age of consent", or are you deliberately misstating the facts? Also, please cite a neutral source supporting your claim Studds was given a standing ovation on the House floor after being censured.
Thanks.
Jer
Typical
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 9:14pm.
sexual relationships withs minors, specifically 17-year-old congressional pages
Jer, you notice pages in in the plural form? But as long as it's consensual eh?
Geez you dimwits are sick sick sick!
Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 9:27pm.
Are you aware that "rape" and "sexual relationships" are not synonymous terms?
Geez...you rethugs are stupid stupid stupid.
Jer
Speaking of stupid,
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 9:42pm.
I guess the word "Minor" escaped your big assed brain ball also?
So let me see if I got this right, if'n you sodomize several minors, it's ok, as long as they say they liked it, eh? And you guys expect us to believe Gay marriage is just an overlooked injustice,,, right?
BTW I aint no @$%&*! stupid rethug, I am a conservative!
Okay...so you're a stupid conservative.
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 9:46pm.
I stand corrected.
Jer
If I am so stupid,
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 9:50pm.
Where do I have I got it wrong? Seems to me it's you who are defending the sodomizing of minors? (As long as they enjoyed it)
Nowhere did I defend Studds behavior. He deserved to be
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:00pm.
censured. But the seventeen-year-old page willingly engaged in the sexual relationship, and although a minor he was old enough to legally consent. Therefore, it was not rape.
Furthermore, the claim that the House gave him a standing ovation after being censured is pure right-wing malarkey, or one might say a "fairy tale".
Jer
You're walking on a tightrope here Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:04pm.
If the action wasn't criminal, why this, Shortly after this scandal, the House Page Board was established for the purpose of protecting pages.
Which is from the Wiki article cited above. If nothing criminal happened why did Congress feel the need to protect pages?
Because it was highly
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:07pm.
Because it was highly inappropriate.
"highly inappropriate"
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:29pm.
Well Bal, that's like saying WWII was a bit of a skirmish.
Nobody said it was appropriate behavior, Rad...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:08pm.
But if the act--which was admitted--was criminal, why wasn't Studds arrested and charged?
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:10pm.
OMG Jer, that's pretty funny. Because he was in Congress! How many crimes do Congress people commit that they aren't prosecuted for?
Do you REALLY believe Barney Frank didn't know there was a prostitution ring going on in his house?
Now Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:12pm.
You know very well that the only time a congressman gets charged with a crime is when they screw another congressman.
Well bravo Jer,
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:15pm.
So when powerful men take advantage of boys, we shouldnt punish them if they can convince the boys, and us they like it.
I just cant imagine defending these actions with the lame ass, consensual bs. Wonder what the pay-off was? No doubt these boys were wide awake at night with the visions of fat assed old men dancing in their heads.
Who can doubt the standing o, after your passionate defense of what I consider atrocities of the highest order.
No, Jer, he wasn't
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 2:12pm.
No, Jer, he wasn't of legal age. The federal legal age of consent is 18.
"An example is the United States, which has passed a Federal age of consent law banning sexual activity by US citizens with foreigners or with other US citizens who are from another one of the States, if any of the partners is under 18."
Source.
As both the Congressman and his Page were from different states AN they were both in DC at the time of the, ahh, indiscretion, he committed statutory rape, according to federal law anyways, hence his "censure."
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Cobra...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 3:21pm.
You need to read and source the actual law rather than citing a laughably miniscule summary from Wiki. Not only was this federal legislation not in effect at the time in question, but its provisions would have been wholly inapplicable to the behavior in which Stubbs engaged.
Jer
I'm with Boudin*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 9:59pm.
Jer, if Boudin is a stupid conservative, then add me to the list. Boudin and I agree on almost every issue important to conservatives. Being called stupid is just another adjective to add to racist, homophobe, toothless, ignorant, teabagging...etc etc Let me know when you run out of labels so we can consider the perjoratives complete.
Bless you Deuce
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:04pm.
The sentiment is mutual
What does cajun consider "sick dimwit", the label which Boudin
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:05pm.
employed to describe me when he FIRST LAUNCHED the pejoratives. Or does cajun not consider it a pejorative?
Jer
cajun..I would appreciate a response.
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:15pm.
Thanks.
Jer
Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:23pm.
You knew very well what Boudin was stating but you chose to insult him with the various legal definitions of "minor", "consent". Your reason for doing so is not always understood clearly by all .....;-)...... He, as others have, took offense at the condescention and struck back with simple language since the MatthewDean vocabulary was unavailable.
Incorrect cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:35pm.
I had not addressed one single word to Boudin before he chimed in with the sick dimwit attack.
Please review the thread.
Jer
Tit for tat
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:47pm.
You called me stupid,
Here I formally apologize for calling you dimwits sick. In the future what would you have me call those who defend the sodomizing of minors? (Even though they liked it)
Sincerely,
You can call them anything you wish, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:55pm.
But since I didn't defend it, please don't call me a sick dimwit.
Jer
Jer,
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 8:04am.
Seems you are the only one here who can call folks names. But when you are called out as sick because you defend someone who has been sodomizing 17yr old pages, suddenly it's all about the name calling.
Jer, you know how folks stick up for you around here, when new folks give you a hard time? THIS is why I will never be one of em,
Your hypocrisy is well in advanced of what I can come to terms with. Please continue with your butthurt whining.
That's right, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 3:35pm.
I'm very well known at this website for launching unprovoked personal attacks and engaging in gratuitous name-calling. As such, you should have no problem in citing a few examples of same. So fire away. [But don't embarrass yourself by trotting out the "stalker" references. That doesn't cut it.]
Jer
Whine on
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 6:08pm.
It suits ya
The classic response
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 7:04pm.
when you have zero evidence.
Jer
Evidence of what?
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 9:51pm.
You have called me punk, son, boy, troll, jackass, stalker and other assorted names, just off of the top of my head. No I wont fetch for you.
But I have never called you any name other then a in privet message, (which you promptly made public so you could whine in similar manor as now) But here you are whining of name calling anyway, because you defend powerful men who sodomize minors.
Go ahead deny it, go ahead call me a liar, go ahead, cause I think less of you daily,,
Produce the evidence so we all can see the context, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 10:03pm.
otherwise just spouting words off the top of your head is absolutely meaningless. You made the claim, so back it up.
Jer
What do I care if you deny it Jer
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 10:17pm.
It didnt bother me then, and your denial doesnt bother me now.
But Jer, I aint the only one who knows these truths,,,,,,
Who else is privy to these truths, Boudin?
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 10:26pm.
Maybe he or she will be kind enough to produce the evidence.
Jer
Fetch, fetch
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 10:47pm.
Whine, whine, good freakin grief,,,
You are delusional.
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 06/03/2012 - 4:35am.
...privet message, (which you promptly made public so you could whine in similar manor as now)
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/comment/reply/56261/1700740#ixzz1wiZqXn6X
Yet another bald-faced lie.
Prove it. You're out of your freakin' mind.
Jer
Sure you did,
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 6:09pm.
By every measure, you defended the creep.
Then describe at least one
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 7:08pm.
of those measures. That I corrected false information? Indeed I did.
Jer
Lame, lame, lamest ever
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 10:06pm.
You were so proud to make clear that the "sex" was consensual. That the boys were 17, and apparently refuse to press charges against a powerful congresscriter. Wow, how proud you must feel, defending the honor of the sodomizer of young, (but consenting) boys.
Congratulations Jer, technically your correct.
Technically I said "you" dimwits are sick.
What I am wondering, is why this sick "fact" is so important to you?
Probably for reasons similar
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 10:24pm.
to those which caused you to be upset with my retaliatory remark.
Do you believe you had a right to be offended but I didn't?
And one more time--but, regrettably, most likely not the last time--I did NOT defend the honor of the 'sodomizer' of young boys. I challenged the accuracy of certain posted information relating to the incident. That is a critical distinction...an obvious distinction, but one which you refuse to grasp.
Jer
Stuff it,
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 10:58pm.
You had your opportunity to make your feelings known. But what did you choose to do? Whine about my "sick dimwit" remark.
I dont fetch or whine!
I understand, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 11:15pm.
You realize the only evidence you could produce would either itself reveal or lead to other evidence revealing the absurdity of your pathetic charges. No wonder you refuse to fetch.
Jer
Give it up, Jer. He refuses
Submitted by balboa on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 11:10pm.
Give it up, Jer. He refuses to understand the simple concepts involved here. It's much more fun for him to just keep being outraged.
I intend to do just that very soon. But I've been putting up
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 11:22pm.
with this crap from Boudin for way too long. I'm enjoying watching him squirm and tie himself into knots.
Jer
I dont squirm either
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 12:08am.
I dont have to, I dont defend powerful men sodomizing boys, (even though it was technically legal).
But the seventeen-year-old page willingly engaged
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 12:16am.
in the sexual relationship, and although a minor he was old enough to legally consent. Therefore, it was not rape.
See it's ok, Jer said so. This Kid cant vote, drink, or join the military. But he can be sodomized by a congresscritter. And Jer makes sure we all know that it's was ok and legal.
Balboa, Rocky, sorry Jer
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 11:01am.
Balboa,
Rocky, sorry Jer clearly stated that since Studd had not been charged with a crime, Studd sodomizing a 17 year old Congressional page, who was his subordinate, is not rape.
It seems like it is you and Jer who refuse to put the law behind you and admit that Studd did rape the 17 year old page.
Let me give you an example of what happened in the high school in my parents neighborhood.
A 30 year old man was the coach for the high schools cheerleading teams. You know how it is with 15, 16 and 17 year old cheerleaders, barely wearing any clothes during practices and events.
Well on Valetines Day of this year it came out that the 30 year old man was having sex with one of the 17 years old girls. Guess what happened to the coach? He was fired!!! The police is investigating and the men will never be able to get a job in a high school. I live in Illinois where the consensual age for sex is either 16 or 17. But the school, the police department did the right and moral thing, they fired the coach and are investigating him.
Why is it that Congressmen and women, from BOTH Sides of the aisle, seem to get away with the same deplorable actions that gets a regular citizen fired from his/her job? This is what you have to ask yourself. Studd committed an immoral act. He was 36, the high school coach 30. High school coach fired, Studd not only re-elected 6 more times to Congress, but given a standing ovation and cheered by his supporters and voters!
You both need to stop talking about nuances, like two foolish college professors who believe they are more sophisticated than those infront them.
You are the one who refuses to understand the simple concepts involved here.
The problem here*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 11:40am.
The reason this discussion has gone off the deep end is because of a simple reason. Some people are very objective and look at "the letter of the law" to determine responsible and criminal behavior in a complex society. Basically, we can agree that a "crime" was not committed by Studds. However, it is also a simple conclusion that we all agree, the actions by this congressman was unethical, immoral, and highly inappropriate. Neither argument is irrelvant but presented from different perspectives. So what is the problem here?? Respect each others different presentations on an issue that obviously everyone agrees on. Instead, it got personal. I would rather have some documentation about the victim and his current situation. The damage done to these young people in similar situations, legal or illegal, should be one of the determining factors as to whether this behavior should be "legal".
The media helped the hundreds of victims of Catholic Priests, as well as pro bono lawyers, to sue for damages due to the trauma these young people suffered. Even though many of them were of legal age. The agenda was the harm a person in a position of authority can do to a "victim", as it should be.
It is the hypocrisy that, its the inability to view a complex issue from more than one high horse, that gets me. Enough already.
Well, cajun... let's at least set the record straight...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 5:12pm.
I simply challenged the accuracy of Tugboat's post. Yes, there was a tinge of condescension inherent in the challenge, but are you also aware that Tugboat had previously posted a very similar comment in which he deliberately conflated my name with Gerry Stubbs while making the same "anal rape" charge? How appropriate was that?
Boudin piped in with the 'sick sick sick dimwit' charge--and has now authored numerous posts on this thread accusing me of defending child rapists--and after I responded in kind to Boudin's initial personal attack, you leapt in to defend him and slam me (and later tried to justify his ad hominem by wrongly claiming Boudin's remark was a reaction to my demeaning him!). I understand that you are not only an ideological ally of Boudin but also a personal friend--neither of which should stand in the way of facts.
I don't know how many times I have to repeat that I'm in no way defending Stubbs' behavior--and that I find it inappropriate and immoral--before Boudin and others will stop insisting that I'm indeed defending and even condoning his actions. It is a lie, pulled straight from the gutter. And, yet, if I point that out, it is labeled "whining"--just as this post is likely to be labeled.
We all hope the seventeen-year-old involved with Stubbs (who was in his mid-30's at the time) is well-adjusted today. He testified then that he had been a willing participant, so I believe the chances are reasonably good he suffered no lasting emotional scarring. But, I'm not dismissing the possibility of a less favorable outcome.
As far as "the letter of the law" (and fidelity to facts), well, such technicalities are the difference between slanderous falsehoods as opposed to truthful claims...and between opprobrious, repellent conduct in contrast to indictable criminal acts which could result in years of imprisonment. God forbid we should ever reside in a society or were subjected to a government which ignored such technicalities.
Jer
See Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 5:32pm.
There you go again. You automatically interpreted my post as an attack on you. Read it again. Several posters made comments that were, to me, based on different points of view on the issue. As a result, insults and put downs were thrown out by more than one poster because of those differening views.
Of all of the complex components of this issue, the focus became.....I'm right..you're wrong..... I thought this would be an interesting thread because, of course, this is a subject important to me. For instance, you stated that the boy involved commented that he was indeed "consensual" in the relationship with Stubbs. I would add that many young people involved in sexual relationships with older adults are always made to feel responsible by the abuser. That is one of the reasons teenagers rarely report sexual abuse to the authorities. It is also a significant part of the MO of perpetrators, or in this case, an exploiter since it was "legal".
My comments were an effort to return to the focus of this article since it is an important step from years ago to societies acceptance of these incidences today. To the point that pedophilia is the focus of even professional groups to be accepted as "normal". Drsam and I have discussed this issue many times. Pointing out an incident that happened years ago and the incremental steps since then to change boundaries and morals to be more accepting to perverts and whackos, which we believe are important issues of today..All I was trying to do is tap posters on the shoulder and ask that we get back to the discussion. Dont take it so personal, it was not directed at you alone.
If I asked too much, then you are correct, and I apologize to all for imposing my wishes on others for a rational and knowledgeable debate on an important societal issue.
cajun, I'm not referring to your post I just responded to...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 5:38pm.
I'm referring to this one:
I'm with Boudin*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 9:59pm.
Jer, if Boudin is a stupid conservative, then add me to the list. Boudin and I agree on almost every issue important to conservatives. Being called stupid is just another adjective to add to racist, homophobe, toothless, ignorant, teabagging...etc etc Let me know when you run out of labels so we can consider the perjoratives complete.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2012/05/31/cnn-hails-openly-gay-...
and this one:
Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:23pm.
You knew very well what Boudin was stating but you chose to insult him with the various legal definitions of "minor", "consent". Your reason for doing so is not always understood clearly by all .....;-)...... He, as others have, took offense at the condescention and struck back with simple language since the MatthewDean vocabulary was unavailable.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2012/05/31/cnn-hails-openly-gay-...
You win Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 5:55pm.
All I was trying to do was bring this discussion back to the issue in the article. You once again reply with the focus on personal attacks. Cajun surrenders.
And what was your focus on, cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 6:07pm.
when you took me to task in those two posts, and yet could never bring yourself to utter one word of criticism to or about Boudin who initiated the character attack, and have stood idly by while he has posted repeatedly that I am excusing the rape of children?
Perhaps if you would, as his friend, point that out to him, we could then steer the discussion in a more positive and productive direction.
Jer
Jer, Please, oh please tell
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 8:54pm.
Jer,
Please, oh please tell me you are not this naive...WOW!!!
You said, "He testified then that he had been a willing participant, so I believe the chances are reasonably good he suffered no lasting emotional scarring."
Are you serious? Because the 17 year old testified that he was a willing participant he must be ok?
Have you ever worked with teenagers? I have and my understanding is that Cajun and others have too.
Sorry, no 17 year old KID is a willing participant to sex with a 36 year old man who is his boss. However, a 36 year old man and woman, can easily manipulate a 17 year old KID to believe that the sexual relationship was consensual.
I think this is the fundamental problem must of us have with what you are saying and it came through with your law based defense.
Would you believe it if a 17 year old girl said that she was a willing participant to sex with a 36 year old man? C'mon now.
Sadly, your attitude is that of countless of Left wingers and I have a feeling it has to do with the fact that it was homosexual sex that took place that is clouding your judgment. I repeat myself, if Gerry Stubb had been a 36 year old Republican who had sex with a 17 year old girl Congressional page who was his subordinate, you would have been the first one to say that despite the law, Gerry raped her.
You went after Boudin and Tugboat and Left all morality AND all common sense out the door due to your dislike of them and because of the homosexual nature of what Stubb did. And like most Left wingers you don't want to come across as being insensitive to homosexuals.
You told me that you believe what Stubb did is immoral, yet you have defended him through the law and now claim that the 17 year old boy, because he said so in court, gave consent and must be fine.
Considering what your defending
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:18pm.
I would say mild. But go ahead and act all butthurt now.
16 is the age of consent in
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 9:55pm.
16 is the age of consent in D.C., so...not rape.
Oh well, he was all of 16
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 9:59pm.
and the Congressman was a middle aged man. Are you sure statutory doesn't enter into this?
That's what the Wikipedia
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:06pm.
That's what the Wikipedia article cited in the above post said. Just clarifying the "not rape" part.
Oh I got it Bal,
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 9:58pm.
16 is the age you can sodomize pages. Sure glad we cleared that up.
Gays, got to love em, because soon it will be the LAW!
Never said it was a good
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:05pm.
Never said it was a good idea, did I? Good grief.
It may be legal Bal
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:05pm.
But if a fifty something year old man f#$s my son or daughter, censure would be the least of his/her worries.
You got that right
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:22pm.
Cant believe folks are defending this act on a technicality. Kid cant drink,vote, or join the military, but by gosh, we can sodomize him, well as long as he likes it.
Makes me want to scream,
NO ONE IS DEFENDING THIS ACT.
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:32pm.
NO ONE IS DEFENDING THIS ACT. PAY ATTENTION. WAKE UP.
BAL
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:35pm.
IT SURE SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE DEFENDING IT.
I can use all caps too. Did it make you change your view?
So, was he able to
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:40pm.
Sodomize the boy legally. Guess we should all be relieved. Good grief
I'm not defending the behavior--on a technicality or otherwise.
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 11:16pm.
But, I am pointing out distinctions based on the LAW--the strict construction of which I thought conservatives generally supported.
Your dissenting view, i.e. "what the hell, it's repugnant and close enough to being illegal", is duly noted, however.
Jer
Strict construction of the Constitution, actually
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 11:21pm.
There are many state's law with which I disagree, (yes, I know, you weren't responding to me, but...), and no, I don't call for Constitutional amendments to all of them.
However, can we at least agree when something is untoward?
RESTLESS...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 11:34pm.
I never DISagreed with the fact that it was untoward.
Jer
You never AGreed that it was either
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:29am.
You know how you lawyers are. ;)
You don't consider my explicit statements that 'I wasn't
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 2:01am.
defending the behavior', that 'no one is saying it was appropriate', and that 'Studds should have been censured' to be an acknowledgement of impropriety? Congress doesn't censure members for "toward" conduct.
Hell yes it was inappropriate behavior!
Jer
As per usual, Jer, your ability to be ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 11:47pm.
articulate takes a back seat to your knee jerk reaction to any criticism of a Democrat or a liberal.
Accuracy is, of course, essential for both the importance of the message itself and for the purveyor's credibility.
"Distinctions" based on the LAW, while obviously important in legal proceedings - whether obvious to those not trained in the legal profession, or not - often result in the type of pedantic display you just put on.
It is difficult to separate said 'distinctions' from what appears to be a very literal siding, on your part, with the action of perverts.
Once your lib buddy bal chimed in with his two cents, I knew you both had grabbed the shitty end of the stick.
Now there's a di-stink- tion for you.
MD
Well shame on me, Matthew, for pointing out
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:04am.
misstatements and misinformation contained in a post. Shame on me for objecting to falsehoods paraded as facts.
I am duly chastened and prepared to accept whatever punishment the admins choose to mete out.
Jer
Jer, No, shame on you for
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:19am.
Jer,
No, shame on you for attacking a Conservative for inaccuracies while hiding behind the law to defend disgusting and sickening behavior!
Do you personally believe that Barney Frank's and his boyfriend's actions and Gerry Studd's, sodomizing a 16 year old Congressional page and running a homosexual prostitution ring from their basement (yes, yes, poor Barney "didn't know"), are immoral acts regardless of the law?
Liberallies...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:56am.
I will address your questions once you concede that I have defended neither Frank's nor Studd's behavior.
Jer
Jer, Answer the question and
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:07am.
Jer,
Answer the question and stop hiding behind..."Well I will do it, but you must first..."
All of us on this forum, except you and Balboa, agree that it isn't looking good for you. I think I know the answer, but because you are a lawyer and your first reaction was to approach Boudin and his comments as a lawyer and not as a normal human being, you put yourself in a truly ridiculous position.
Yes or no.
Do you consider Studd's, Frank's and his boyfriend's actions that we are talking about on this forum immoral, wrong, etc?
Answer this and we can all move on.
So tell me, Liberallies...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:44am.
How should a "normal human being" respond to being called a sick dimwit?
Jer
Jer, By ignoring it Jer.
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:54am.
Jer,
By ignoring it Jer. Just like you have asked me to do in the past when I have been insulted.
Now, please, answer the question.
Do you consider Studd's behavior, frank's and his boyfriend's immoral?
I am unsure why you are pushing all kinds of diversions to avoid answer my question.
Liberallies...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 2:03am.
Yes.
Jer
Jer, Ok, thank you! That's
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 2:08am.
Jer,
Ok, thank you! That's what I thought. but I honestly believe that you had a knee jerk reaction to Boudin and you missed stating this clearly from the beginning.
If you believe this, why then did you claim that rape is not rape because the law says it is not rape.
By the way, a Congressional censure doesn't amount to much, as we all know
Liberallies...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 2:30am.
A couple of questions for you, and then we'll need to resume this later.
a. Do you believe a gay couple engaging in sexual relations to be immoral in all circumstances?
b. Why do you consider the sexual relations between Studds and the seventeen-year-old page to have constituted rape?
Jer
Jer, a. Yes I do. All gay
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 4:36am.
Jer,
a. Yes I do. All gay sexual acts are immoral. MORE SO when it is between an adult an anyone who is 17 or under. However, In this instance, I am not talking about being immoral because it is homosexual sex. It is immoral because it was between an old fart and a 17 year old kid!
I would say it is immoral if it was between a 45 year old women and a 17 year old boy. Or a 45 year old man and a 17 year old girl.
The homosexual nature of the sex just adds to the immorality.
b. I consider it rape because no 17 year old has the mental maturity, mental capacity to realize that having sex with a much older individual, who is your boss, can cause real emotional, physical, etc. problems. Studd's took advantage of the 17 year old.
Would you say that a 45 year old man having sex with a 17 year old girl is not rape, even if the girl says it is ok?
There is also the position of authority to consider!
Do you honestly give consent to have sex with a person double, triple your age, as a teenager, when you know the person asking you for it can affect your career?
Studd was in a position of authority over the Congressional page. If Studd had been a red blooded heterosexual Republican male who had sex with a 17 year old girl who was his Congressional page, you and I both know that it would have been considered rape! And the Age of Consent would not have applied because Studd was in a position of authority over the page.
However, since Studd is homosexual, he was protected by his fellow politicians. Gosh, how dare we speak the truth and claim this was rape, even if the law doesn't consider it. Which I challange due to the whole position of authority.
Rape is rape, even if the law says it is not rape.
You, Jer, are a lefty who defends Obama and ol' ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:15am.
Slick Willie; therefore, NOTHING chastens you.
MD
LOL Matthew*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:20am.
I suppose you heard me mention your name.....see my earlier post...
Thank you sha....;-)
cajun, I noted that, and though I arrived late to the game, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:28am.
it was easy to see the usual suspects were being handled quite nicely by our side.
MD
Well, thus far I'm unscathed, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:33am.
but there are still a couple of innings remaining, and I'm tiring.
Jer
Unscathed, unchastened, and ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:43am.
unrepentant.
Damn, you are a lefty, aint'cha?
You do pretty good for a one-legged fella in an ass-kicking contest, I'll give you that. :o)
MD
One-Legged ... Reminds Me Of
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:54am.
King Matthewdean and the Black Jer:
Fond memories, strat...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:05am.
of your having posted that one back in a time when you and I had a much more congenial relationship. Ah, those were the days.
Jer
Yes
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:51am.
The old days when we were younger.
16 is the age of consent
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 11:41pm.
16 is the age of consent in
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 9:55pm.
16 is the age of consent in D.C., so...not rape.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funny, I can't remember the name, but if I remember correctly, the Republican who about three or four years ago was caught sending sexual explicit texts to his pages, the pages were 17 and over, was labeled a pervert, a sick person, etc., etc. By Liberals
so, Liberal "logic"
-Send homosexual sexual based text messages to 17 and over Congressional pages and you are a sick, perverted, nasty, disgusting politician.
-Sodomize a 16 year old Congressional page and you and your boyfriend will be heroes of the Liberal movement. Nothing wrong was done.
What is wrong with you Liberals?!
Just because the law in any State or District may not consider something illegal and immoral, it does not mean it isn't!!! Who the heck cares about the law.
Yes, sodomizing a 16 year old, regardless of the law, IS rape!
WOW!!!
But this is what no one on the Left wants to talk about. You have Left wing groups like the ACLU, which countless of Liberals are proud card carrying members, defending NAMBLA, you have Left wing justices openly saying that the age of sexual consent must be lowered. you have nations in Europe controlled by Left wingers pushing and passing laws that the age of sexual consent should be as low as 12.
Yes, the ultimate goal of the radical, pro-military homosexuals and other perverted Left wing groups is to have access to our children.
I am truly shocked that anyone would in any way, shape or form defend Barney Frank's and his boyfriend's actions against pages.
Why point to the law or some other loopholes in the law to claim that it wasn't illegal other than to make people believe it wasn't wrong?
Truly DISGUSTING!
DC laws don't apply, Bal
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 2:10pm.
DC laws don't apply in that case, Bal. There are federal laws concerning the age of consent for people who are from different states, or are in a state of which they are not a resident. That laws states that the age of consent is 18, not 16. Why do you think the Congressman in question was even censured? It's because he committed statutory rape. It's just that the federal government decided not to prosecute. So Congress intervened and censured him.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Jer.. "Rethugs"? "Stupid, stupid, stupid"????
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 9:57pm.
You're making me regret defending you against the "troll" charge.
Where is this coming from? Age of consent your bone of contention, or do you really want to defend Studd's actions?
Yada yada*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:04pm.
You can debate the meaning of the law, the ethics of this idiot to the nth degree. But not once have I seen anyone mention this kid. How is he doing? Where is he? Does he show signs of mental health issues? To be introduced to sexual behavior with an adult at an early age, especially a person in position of authority, can have devastating effects on the young person regardless of his "consent".
But it appears that the young person involved is of no importance as long as the "gay" agenda gets approval.
Well said Cajun
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:07pm.
And the age of consent if going to get lower and lower to make it easier for pedophiles of straight and gay pedophiles.
I ain't the one arguing any of this
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:13pm.
I think the law is inadequate in terms of giving consent, but it's an impossible task to legislate it. It's a state's rights issue, and as such, the age of consent is different among the states.
We would all agree that an eighteen year old, able to consent to military service, (17 in some cases) should be able to consent to cigarettes, beer, or sex.
The question is, how do you diffentiate consent from intimidation? Should all sex with an authority figure be outlawed? Knowing porn when you see it don't a law make.
That said, my beef with Jer is his ad hominem. I know he'll point out the idiot comment above as defense, but he went over the top, IMO.
RESTLESS...what are the ad hominems I'm permitted to use
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:21pm.
when someone calls me a "sick dimwit"?
Jer
Jer you never let calling me name get in your way
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:33pm.
So fire away,
If you had a problem with Boudin said
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:37pm.
I would expect you to take it up with him. You generalized. Even though his could be construed as an generalization, it was pretty obvious his beef was with you.
I DID NOT GENERALIZE, RESTLESS...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:51pm.
Reread the posts. I responded to Boudin in the precise manner he had framed his 'insult'.
Good grief.
Jer
No need to yell, Jer
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 11:18pm.
Geez...you rethugs are stupid stupid stupid.
Sorry if the plural form led me the generalization charge. Did you miss where I said the Boudin's was technically a generalization too?
Okay, RESTLESS...I'm whispering.
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 11:44pm.
Boudin says Geez, you dimwits are sick sick sick!
Jer replies Geez...you rethugs are stupid stupid stupid.
RESTLESS uncategorically pronounces my statement a "generalization".
RESTLESS opines that Boudin's statement could be construed as a generalization, technically speaking.
Do I have that right?
Jer
Jer, You have the right to
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:20am.
Jer,
You have the right to insult anyone and others have a right to insult you.
You have the right to defend your position and speak your mind.
What I am honestly shocked by is that unless I missed it, you have yet to clearly and succintly state that what Barney Frank and his boyfriend did to 16 year old pages, regarldess of the law, was immoral, sick, disgusting, etc., etc.
All I have read from you is "the law says..." and "if you call me a name, I will also insult you!"
Can you clearly and succinctly right here and now state whether or not you believe, Gerry Studd's, Barney Frank's actions and that of his boyfriend's, when it comes to sodomizing a 16 year old and the running of a homosexual prostitution ring, to be immoral and wrong?
Sorry Jer, my bad
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:17am.
I interpreted Boudin's generalization as against perverts. Didn't know you considered yourself among that class.
I missed where he said that all demonrats are "...sick, sick, sick,...".
Did you interpret my [alleged] generalization
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:28am.
to be directed against stupid people. You don't consider yourself among that class, do you?
BTW, you originally posted that Boudin's beef appeared to be with me personally. Now you say you interpreted it as a generalization against perverts.
Which is it?
Jer
I interpreted your generalization against republicans
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:35am.
Or did you mean something else with your usage of a common derogatory term for republicans/conservatives?
Boudin had since made his intention clear between my posts. Sorry I didn't make that clear. If he says he wasn't targeting you, then I take him at his word.
Then why did I not in my follow-up post
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 2:54am.
to Boudin phrase my comment something like this: "Okay, so conservatives are stupid"
...if I intended it to be a generalization about conservatives or Republicans? Instead, the remark ["Okay...so you're a stupid conservative"] was directed specifically at, and limited to, Boudin.
Sorry, RESTLESS...the 'tarring of all Republicans/conservatives' argument doesn't hold water.
Once again, the reason my first statement was worded in the manner posted is because it was designed to mirror in its form precisely what Boudin had stated about me. That should have been obvious.
Jer
Just playing your game
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 11:26pm.
Cuz, to the letter of the "law", Boudin was generalizing against "dimwits", you were generalizing against republicans.
Yes, I do understand why you would want to correct the record regarding the terms, but instead of posting "rethugs", you could have used, say, "jackasses", as that would have been and equally nondescript term to "dimwits".
Jer is being put upon again
Submitted by MrShy on Sun, 06/03/2012 - 3:10am.
Poor Jer, never gettin' no respect, what with bein' a lib'rul on a conservative site an' all.
Some things never change.
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Geez, Shy...I was hoping you had lost the link
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 06/03/2012 - 3:46am.
to that pathetic photoshop.
Anyway, congrats to your Mets again. Looks like we may never score another run against you.
Jer
Jer, Hmmm...shall we play
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:04am.
Jer,
Hmmm...shall we play your lawyer, must be accurate game? You said, (and I quote), "Geez...you rethugs are stupid stupid stupid."
You generalized and pretty much insulted any and all Republicans calling Republicans stupid and using a derogatory term, "rethugs". Thus, you may want to understand why many of us have jumped on you. You made your beef against Boudin seem that it is a beef against any and all Republicans.
Also, I think quite a few of us are waiting for an answer....
Do you believe that Studd's action of sodomizing an underage Congressional page, then being re-elected 6 times. Barney Frank running a homosexual prostitution ring are immoral actions.
You keep on hiding behind the "I am so outraged that Boudin insulted me!" and the, "well the law says..."
Give us your personal opinion on this matter. Is it wrong, immoral what Gerry Studd's did? Is it wrong an dimmoral that after being caught he was re-elected 6 times? Is it wrong that Frank and his boyfriend ran a homosexual prostitution ring from their basement?
Next time you want to generalize and call every Republican stupid, you may want to hold on to your seat and accept the barrage of posts that will be addressed to you, including the insulting ones.
i don't see how Boudin's post to you was representative of all Republicans, which I am even unsure if Boudin is, that led you to throw a generalized attack against all Republicans.
For not liking insults, you are certainly good at using them.
Damn, Fut
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 11:39pm.
Wish I had seen you post before posting mine above. I've apparently been unclear that I was opposed to the use of "rethugs" in Jer's post.
I will disagree that Jer was condoning the act. He has posted several times that he thinks it was inappropriate. I think most, if not all, of us agree that the behavior was repugnant. Unfortunately, the law does not allow for more punishment than the censure that was given.
(sigh!)
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 06/03/2012 - 1:16am.
Do you know how many times in 4 years and 51 weeks I have used the term "rethugs" or any pejorative term for Republicans? Once. On this thread.
Do you know how many times in that same period I have used a pejorative term for 'conservative'? Once. Someone called me a "libtard" so I called him a "conservatard"
Do you know why I used the term "rethugs" on this occasion? Because I was precisely mirroring the terminology and context Boudin used in insulting me...word for word, pejorative for pejorative. [If Boudin had used the singular "dimwit" I would have likewise used the singular "rethug".] It's commonly known as giving someone a taste of his own medicine. That's the only reason. How anyone can attach different interpretations to comments absolutely identical in form, syntax, and context is beyond me.
Jer
We're getting close, Jer
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 06/03/2012 - 1:32am.
Boudin did not use a common pejorative for democrats. He used a pejorative for idiots. YOU used a common pejorative for republicans.
And yes,pejorative is the word of the day. :)
Really, RESTLESS?
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 06/03/2012 - 1:51am.
Type in "dimwits" in the NB search engine. There are 21 pages containing numerous links on every page, and, of course, that's not counting the huge number of archived thread links that were wiped out. So how commonly does a pejorative term need to be used before it is considered a common pejorative?
Jer
Yes, really
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 06/03/2012 - 2:21am.
21 pages of what? "Dimwits" used synonymously with democrats, or dimwits used synonymously with stupid people.
That most posters here view democrats as dimwitted is not a surprise. You know why I took offense, and it wasn't that you wanted a fair use of correct terms. You did take a shot at republicans, and you got blowback. Deal with it.
Well I can assure you, RESTLESS, that Boudin
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 06/03/2012 - 2:39am.
uses "dimwits" as a common pejorative for Democrats.
Such as here:
And even as the dimwits vote down the Gender abortion law
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 9:03pm.
As Levin points out, they have instructed the media not to report the other aspect of the bill. It was also to ban abortions based on the race of the child.
Hmm wonder why?
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-wilson/2012/05/31/surprise-broadcast-n...
and here:
Hey Doc,
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 05/13/2012 - 1:11pm.
Levin was talking about the student loans the other day.
First of all, the rate increase was written into the bill the dimwits passed.
Second, The average rate increase is $6 bucks a month.
Third, it will not effect anyone with a current loan.
Fourth, taking over the student loans, will cause education cost to skyrocket, not the opposite.
Fifth, Last July, the rates were at the same level as the new increase.
The dimwits created this issue, with their legislation. Now when it's found to be flawed, it's everyone's fault but their own, as usuals. Naturally, our public educated students cant read a contract, so they bite off more then they can chew, and end up protesting in the park.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/05/12/all-purpose-weeken...
So are you suggesting my error was mistaking Boudin's pejorative for Democrats to be a general one? And that if he had used, for example, the term DemoRats you would have accepted my use of rethugs?
Are you really splitting this hair down to that microscopic distinction?
C'mon.
Jer
Yes, I am
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 06/03/2012 - 2:56am.
Ron Paul voted with the "dimwits" on the gender selection bill. Is he a democrat, or merely and idiot?
And, I'm obviously not as aware of Boudin's previous postings as you are.
Still, I'm sure "dimwit" has been in the lexicon far longer than "rethugs". Your term is pretty specific, and "dimwit", not so much.
That said, I think you are better than to employ a common Kos pejorative. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I am really surprised at this...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 06/03/2012 - 3:16am.
I've already found four additional examples where Boudin has used the term "dimwits" interchangeably with and indisputably associated with "Democrats".
I carefully explained why I used "rethugs" on this one occasion after five years and thousands of posts. And for that I get the Kos card flung at me.
Again, if he had used the term DemoRats instead of his preferred term "dimwits", would you have been satisfied with my response?
Jer
Yes
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 06/03/2012 - 3:26am.
I used "Demonrats" elsewhere on this thread, and had you returned in kind, I wouldn't have had a problem with it.
I think I know where you're coming from, and you know my beef, so to continue with this is unproductive. No hard feelings.
RESTLESS...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 06/03/2012 - 3:31am.
I was posting another example below while you were posting your comment.
But, fair enough.
No hard feelings on this side either.
Later,
Jer
Here's one with a topic familiar to you.
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 06/03/2012 - 3:28am.
Really
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 05/02/2012 - 8:17pm.
Seems the 50's were the dimwits kkk heydays,
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2012/05/02/snls-fred-armisen-o...
RESTLESS...so someone can call me a "sick dimwit" and
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:13pm.
I'm not allowed to respond in kind? You've never previously taken that position in the five years I've been here.
Jer
Wow,
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:29pm.
This coming from the dude who has called me more names then I can count.
But I am the ill one because I think sodomizing minors is sick.
Also since I knew you would eventually fall back on this lame assed attempt to shift the topic, I didnt personally call you sick, I said the dimwits were. So Jer, are you a dimwit?
Now how about getting back to defending Congresscritters sodomizing minors, eh
Really, Boudin? It wasn't personal?
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 11:31pm.
Jer, you notice pages in in the plural form? But as long as it's consensual eh?
Geez you dimwits are sick sick sick!
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2012/05/31/cnn-hails-openly-gay-...
Fortunately, there are hundreds of NBers who will recognize this as just another typical Boudin "how do I squirm my way out of this one" exercise in futility.
Jer
"Hundreds" of NBers, Jer, recognizing a fellow ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 11:58pm.
conservative 'squirming' to get 'out of this one' - ?
Nah.
More like regular NBers observing the house lib on another slam Boudin rant.
About the same number who realize that you actually believe your lefty pronouncements smell of frankincense and myrrh.
They smell, all right. :o)
MD
MD
Submitted by milootoole on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:04am.
Perhaps you meant, instead of frankincense, franks and beans.
milo ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:11am.
Much better.
Indeed. :o)
MD
That's right, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:12am.
if I dare respond to yet another of his insulting posts, then I'm beating up on poor little Boudin.
Dream on.
Jer
Nice try, Jeringo, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:23am.
but as usual, you lose sight of the fact that when you are as ass deep in the insult game as you are, the di-stink-tion of who threw the first punch becomes pretty much immaterial.
Unless, of course, one wants to paint one's self as blameless and pure as the driven snow.
As I said, lefty-on-a conservative-site, nice try.
MD
So who threw the first punch is pretty much immaterial?
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:11am.
Really? Try selling that to Zimmerman's defense team.
Jer
Jer, I think your "war" with
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:17am.
Jer,
I think your "war" with Boudin has been going on for a while well beyond this forum.
I think your complaint on who started this is akin to Nazi Germany crying over the fact that the United States and the Allies started the invasion of Normandy. It worked so well for Nazi Germany, right?
Interesting, Liberallies...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:40am.
I can't help but note you have me aligned with the Nazis and Boudin with the Allies. :-)
Look, anyone who is reasonably familiar with my commenting style over the years knows that I don't initiate personal attacks, but I do reserve the right to respond to them in kind. This particular instance is an excellent example of that approach.
Jer
Jer, Ooops, it was not on
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:48am.
Jer,
Ooops, it was not on purpose to align you with Nazi Germany. LOL
Well Jer, all I know is that you have been on my cases quite a few times for responding in kind when people insulted me and went after me, correct?
you have asked me quite a few times to stay above the fray and be the bigger person. If you feel so insulted by Boudin, honestly, who cares. This is just a faceless forum. I ask you to do what you have asked of me, stay above the fray even when you feel you are being personally attacked.
I have in the past defended my insults and poor behavior by saying that the other person started it and neither you nor anyone else, and rightly so, accept my defense. So, I am only asking you to do what you have asked of me in the past.
This being said, please read post below because either on purpose or not, you did defend Studd's behavior. I personally think you did it on purpose, but in your attempt to make Boudin look foolish, which you failed, your words betrayed you and you defended a behavior which I think Right or Left, most of us know is immoral and raped, regardless of the law.
Nice try, Jeringo; but you are mixing your ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 3:37am.
fruit and ignoring the fact that typed exchanges via an electronic medium equate in absolutely NO way to a face-to-face fatal physical altercation.
MD
It was his constituents
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:20pm.
after his censure.
Correct bk..
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:30pm.
and a town meeting back in his district is not exactly "the floor of the House".
You either support accuracy in posting or you don't. And it looks as if several on this thread are indifferent to accuracy as long as the comment reflects badly on Democrats and libs.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:32pm.
I don't think the issue is so much about Democrats and libs as it is about men in power who take advantage of someone who has not reached legal adulthood. THAT is what some of us are fired up, political party be damned.
Actualy it's now about
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:35pm.
Dimwits cheering on and defending congressmen sodomizing minors. Both happened, and to some extent continue too.
Typed for me Ms Rad*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:42pm.
*like*
And just how much time do you
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:34pm.
And just how much time do you spend on liberal sites "correcting" them about what they say about conservatives?? You can ballpark it. You know, since you're so concerned about accuracy.
How about you, bal??
NC Cop...I have very rarely posted at liberal sites...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:46pm.
probably less than a dozen comments total. And I would estimate that nearly half of those were correcting or criticizing what was being said about conservatives.
Jer
Ahhhhhhhhhhh......
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:50pm.
Ahhhhhhhhhhh......so is it fair to say you are more concerned with conservative accuracy about liberals than vice versa??
Yea I know
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:50pm.
Your shocked aint ya.
Joe Friday here
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:38pm.
Reprehensible in either case, though. Anyone who excuses that kind of behavior is reprehensible. It's also notable -I think- that it didn't become public knowledge until 10 years after the fact. Jerry Sandusky was charged for similar acts (his victims were younger); Gerry Studds was re-elected.
bk
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:46pm.
Please don't get me started on the Penn State case. I'm one of those people who holds Joe Paterno responsible for taking the least possible action, allowing Sandusky to continue to abuse other children.
I'm not very popular here in Pennsylvania.
You're right Rad
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:47pm.
JoePa was culpable.
JoePa was a cog*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:55pm.
Joe Paterno was just anothe cog in the large wheel of Penn State. The board of directors, other members of the staff, the administration, all knew about Sandusky for decades, together creating an atmosphere of "consent" for the continued behavior. Of course, this part of the scandal was ignored since a Catholic Priest wasn't involved.
Cajun
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 11:01pm.
I view Joe Paterno as more responsible since he created his image of how much he cared for the players, and seemed to carry himself above football when it came to the good of the players. Where was he when it came to the good of the boys abused by Sandusky?
Sorry, living in Pennsylvania it's blasphemy to say anything against Paterno, and it makes me ill. In the end, I believe Paterno's ego is responsible for him not stepping up and making sure Sandusky was stopped.
True Ms Rad*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 11:14pm.
We won't know but JoePa has been judged.
BK
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:35am.
Studds was re-elected six more times after the censure, a censure that was known by his constituents who kept voting for the bastard.
Reminds me of Barney Frank and the marijuana bust that occurred while he was visiting the home of a friend and the prostitution bust that happened in his own home. Frank kept being re-elected.
Sick Democrats is entirely appropriate in this case.
Who cares who cheered
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:50pm.
Would you cheer if some if some middle aged man got away with censure for sodomizing your son or daughter?
As I posted earlier, just because the age on consent threshold is met, doesn't make it right, moral, or cheer worthy.
Restless1, You better
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 11:57pm.
Restless1,
You better becareful with what you ask.
A while back I had a boss who is a radical Left wing feminist. The New York Times and Bill Maher are her heroes.
We were having a conversation when I asked her, "Would you be happy if your two sons slept around and used women?" To which she answered, "I hope my sons have as many sexual experiences as possible before they get married!" To which I replied, "So, as a Liberal feminists who claims to be pro-women, you do not care that your sons, who are men, will be using women for their own pleasure and possibly get STDs or lead a woman to have an abortion, possibly killing a girl?" She just gave me a dirty look and walked away.
The Liberal mind is pure pervertion when it comes to sexuality. Remember, quite a few Liberals are proud ACLU card carrying members. The same ACLU which defended NAMBLA in court.
The funny thing is, LL
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:25am.
I'm a red blooded, American male, and as such, consider myself...er... "randy"... a decent amount of time, but it never occurs to me that I must diddle everything in sight to prove I'm alive.
Gotta save some time for BBQ, poker, and the ponies.
Sgt. Rock said it best, (and God knows we had our disagreements): "How much sodomy do we have to engage in to prove we are free?".
Restless1, Well said. I
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:22am.
Restless1,
Well said. I agree with you.
Opps,
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 10:31pm.
Looks like Jer's puny ballon just went poof
Looks like you need to get your eyes
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 11:02pm.
checked.
Jer
Really, Jer
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 7:49am.
Studds Gets Standing Ovations At First Meeting Since Censure
Yea, he sodomizes minors, and still gets to represent us, yea. Who else but a dimwit would cheer this creep on?
Bahney and gerry ah
Submitted by milootoole on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:02am.
Bahney and gerry ah Massachusetts guys. The lust afta ahses on young boys. The climate created by people like them results in this kind of legal judgement. I would never go back there.
Issue:
"In April 2005, David Parker spent a night in jail following conflict with his son's school over books about homosexuality. His son Jacob, then in kindergarten, had brought home a "diversity book bag" containing a book entitled Who's in a Family? The book pictured various groupings including same-sex couples."
On appeal:
""In essence, under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy," wrote Judge Wolf. "Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation. . . . It is reasonable for public educators to teach elementary school students about individuals with different sexual orientations and about various forms of families, including those with same-sex parents, in an effort to eradicate the effects of past discrimination, to reduce the risk of future discrimination and, in the process, to reaffirm our nation's constitutional commitment to promoting mutual respect among members of our diverse society."
Just as in Germany, the schools are teaching the things that certain groups want taught, over the complaints of the parents.
Until the second shot heard around the world is fired, this will continue on and young minds will be even more confused than they are today.
I ask you to note that the boy in question was in kindergarten.
"In 1978, NAMBLA was just another oddball sexual group proposing another oddball, radical philosophy: Kids should have more rights, particularly the right to have sex with whomever they please. Age should not be a consideration in anything, especially sex and love, and age-of-consent laws should be repealed. It was a more permissive time, a time before AIDS, and during NAMBLA's infancy in Boston (it would later move its headquarters to New York), the group enjoyed the support of a vocal minority in the gay community, who believed that attacks on boy-lovers were veiled attacks on all homosexuals. To NAMBLA's greater surprise, it found that even many straight people were willing to discuss adult-youth relationships without resorting to name calling and finger wagging. "
I know that no one was directly supporting Studds It was just a typical liberal argument--"It all depends what "is" is". So your local lib are going to bring up points of law to support the heinous behavior of a few perverts.
milo...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:17am.
"So your local lib are going to bring up points of law to support the heinous behavior of a few perverts."
Why do you end an otherwise reasonably intelligent and informative post with a blatant lie?
Not cool.
Jer
Not cool you say, Jer? Better bone up on the ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:38am.
presentations in your posts, then, because as of now, it would appear that the liberal left two-some jer-bal are defending those who use a rodent known as a ger-bil for deviant sexual practices.
Not cool, eh?
It would appear that Boudin, RESTLESS1, cajun, Radical, Liberallies, milo, and myself are calling you and bal out for not being cool.
MD
In cases such as this, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:29am.
it is very comforting to know the facts are on my side.
No one has yet identified a single word I have posted which can be reasonably construed as a defense of--or in any manner associated with defending--Frank's and Stubb's behavior.
And no one will identify one because on one can.
I regret that folks are upset with my pointing out the erroneous information contained in Tugboat's post and my giving Boudin a dose of his own medicine.
Jer
Jer, it is both what you
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:58am.
Jer,
it is both what you said and what you didn't say. You are a legend in your own mind.
You did say that if Studd committed a crime why wasn't he arrested and charged, right? You did say this, correct? CORRECT!
I am unsure if you are a criminal lawyer, but as an ex-cop, i can tell you of countless of times of when criminals committed crimes, but since the law or the State Attorney's office decided they were not a crime, I could not arrest the person and of course there was no charge.
This was an incredibly silly defense by you.
So, in your mind, what he did was not criminal because oh gosh the law doesn't say it is.
And this is just with a quick scan of the posts above.
You also claimed that a 16 year old, since the law said so, can have consensual sex with an adult, right? yes you did. You clearly said that it can't be raped what Studd did because the law said that a 16 year old sodomized by an adult is not rape.
Yet, you claim you are not defending Studd's behavior?
I ask you, despite the law, do you believe what Studd did is rape or not?
It is also what you have not said! (As a lawyer, you should know this).
You have yet to condemn and call immoral Studd's, Frank's and his boyfriends behavior.
You are more interested in making Boudin look bad than in making sure that you are not defending immoral, disgusting behavior.
Claiming that rape is not rape becauses the law says it is not rape is defending the person who committed the rape. Only a left winger would be blind to this.
And again, Jer, you miss the point being made, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 3:17am.
which is that your inclination to jump in with both feet in defense of anything said against liberals or Democrats, puts you, as always as a lefty on this site, at odds with conservative posters here.
No one really gives a shit because you say " it is very comforting to know the facts are on my side."
You come across as indignant that any here would dare question the LAW, or the facts, as if conservatives are twisting everything in order to make the left look bad - when in reality it is obvious that those individuals being discussed ARE bad; and have done bad things.
Period.
As lawyers are taught, if the other side has the facts, beat on the table and expound on the "LAW".
You can parse your butt off, Jer - it still reeks of defending the indefensible.
MD
Absolutely amazing...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 4:01pm.
Your Honor, the state realizes these acts did not constitute "rape", but nevertheless they were very, very baaaad...and they were of a sexual nature, so we intend to try the accused for rape anyway. And, furthermore, Your Honor, even though there is absolutely no evidence of his fellow congressmen giving the accused a standing ovation after his being censured by them for those acts, we believe they would have liked very much to give him such ovation--after all, they are sick dimwits--and therefore we see no harm in alleging that it actually occurred.
You should be embarrassed to call yourself a conservative.
Jer
BTW...it's "if the facts are on your side, pound on the facts; if the law is on your side, pound on the law; and if neither is on your side, pound on the table."
Keep pounding on the table, Matthew.
Jer, Who said it is not
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 5:09pm.
Jer,
Who said it is not rape? You? Who died and made you a god?
This wasn't merely of a sexual nature, this was about a 50 year old man having sex with a 17 year old boy. You stated above that you believe this is immoral, yet you keep on with your, "the law says it is not rape, thus it is not rape..." defense.
Do you believe that a 17 year old boy whose much older boss approaches him to have sex has the mental capacity, the maturity to do decided without being affected by the fact that it is HIS BOSS who is asking for sex?. by the fact that HIS BOSS IS A MUCH, MUCH OLDER man asking for sex?
Again, I ask you, if this had been a 50 year old Republican male who had sex with his 17 year old girl Congressional page, YOU would be the first one in line screaming and yelling, "RAPE, RAPE!!"
Geez, you must not go through the politically correct, Liberal lead sexual harrasment training that most Americans get today!! If my boss asks me for sex, it is sexual harrassment. If my boss intimidates me into having sex, it is rape and I must report it to the authorities and HR. Hmmmm....
Please tell me you aren't naive enough to believe that a 50 year old Congressman can't intimidate someone working under him who is 17 years old.
AND you and I both know that just because a state attorney's office or the federal government decides not to prosecute, it does not mean a crime was not committed.
I think the only one who needs to keep on pounding on the table is you, Jer.
By the way, if you read below, Tugboat corrected himself about the point you keep pounding on, that there was no standing ovation for this rapist in Congress. However, what you haven't been able to adressed is the fact that Studd was elected 6 more times despite his disgusting, immoral and yes, rapist behavior.
What is absolutely amazing, Jer, is that ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 12:06am.
you, a lefty, on this most conservative site, in defending your sleaze-monkey leftist compadres, look around and somehow find a big enough set of balls to strap on to tell me that I should be embarrassed to call myself a conservative.
You should be embarrassed to bring your left oriented bullshit into play every day of the week around here - nobody buys it except balboa and assorted lib trolls - and you should be equally embarrassed with your paragraph concerning congressmen giving a standing ovation to the accused when it never happened - as though that negates the standing ovation that the accused DID receive from his constituents - your preferred partisans. Disgusting.
As that doesn't appear to slow you down in the least, I am surprised that your raucous - though dogmatic and uninspired left tilt - does not cause your head to explode from cognitive dissonance; a result of your continual bleating about how on the one hand you chastise certain errant denizens of the left, while at the same time mightily defending leftist twits guilty of far worse.
As far as facts, law, and pounding; I'll go with what I stated - The facts are out there, and you pound on what the law says as a way of deflecting from the enormity of what the miscreant lefties did.
MD
Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 1:47am.
The notion that Stubbs was given a standing ovation by the Congressmen who had just censured him would, if true, implicate my own congressional representative and senator at the time in an outrageous display of twisted loyalty, and that would be very troubling to me.
But the fact is that it never happened. So defend a lie if it warms your partisan heart to do so and slam me for daring to question what turned out to be a false accusation. However, it doesn't reflect well on your judgment or integrity.
Jer
edit. strike "senator"
Jer
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 1:47am.
You better take a look at my post below. The notion isn't that far off the mark.
Yikes
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 1:52am.
Gibson: "Studds said he felt the Committee exceded its authority, but he accepted its findings to protect others involved. And Studds was congratulated by fellow members as he left the floor, but he and Crane *** could face formal reprimand from the full House as early as next week.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2012/05/31/cnn-hails-openly-gay-...
Pays to keep up. Now maybe this wasnt a standing o, but it sure sounds like a lot of back slapping and high fiven. But I am sure, it's not up to your standards eh?
Jer ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 2:53am.
You misinterpreted what I typed:
"- and you should be equally embarrassed with your paragraph concerning congressmen giving a standing ovation to the accused when it never happened - as though that negates the standing ovation that the accused DID receive from his constituents -"
That may be because of my predilection for run-on sentences and a lack of a comma or two.
Note: "---giving a standing ovation to the accused, when it never happened,---".
I was saying the standing ovation from fellow congressmen never took place, so I wasn't defending a lie; and I wasn't slamming you for questioning what was a false accusation.
I will admit, though, that successfully yanking your chain does indeed warm my partisan heart. :o)
I will rephrase, and hopefully make my attempt at insulting repartee a tad clearer:
You seem to propose - that even though the "standing ovation" by congressmen was proven to be a falsehood - that the fact it was proven to be untrue somehow negates the ACTUAL standing ovation received from the accused politicians constituents.
As far as my judgment and integrity; it is only questioned by lefties, liberals, and trolls.
Oh, and my ex-wife. :o)
MD
At least it's not a rape rape, right?
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:37pm.
Well Jer, at least it's not a rape-rape, right?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Jer maybe you could help me.
Submitted by James2306 on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 8:05pm.
I seem to recall someone saying years ago that the age of consent in DC was changed after what Studds did but I cant find a site that gives a legal timeline. As a lwayer I was wondering if you knew of one so I could confirm if the law was changed and when.
Pacifism is a luxury bought with the blood of the valorous
James...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 8:52pm.
I did some cursory research yesterday and it appears the age of consent in DC has been 16 for quite some time although I don't know when it was originally enacted.
Here's a handy website for information on that and related matters in the various states. And another concerning revisions in the definition of rape made earlier this year by the DOJ.
Jer
update: Just ran across this online source for the D.C. Official Code. It may furnish details relating to legislative history of the pertinent provisions. There are several chapters and sections under Title 22 which address sex-related crimes. I'll take a closer look.
One final note...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 9:18pm.
I'm going to be mostly out of pocket for the next couple of hours. In the meantime maybe strat can locate the answer to your specific question if he has the time and inclination. Despite our rather rocky relationship, I must concede that he is only slightly behind the Vet in the ranking of the two top researchers at this website.
[That's not meant to diminish the talents of Par For The Course, Gary Hall, dscott, bkeyser, Wrathful Brunette, Blonde, Rush Fan and others who are also outstanding in that area.]
Jer
Jer, What parts of the Studd
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 10:24pm.
Jer,
What parts of the Studd and the Congressional page relationship and ultimate sexual behavior do you not get.
1) Studd was a much older man, an old fart. The boy was 17 at the time.
2) Studd was his boss. The boy was 17 at the time
3) The boss "asked" for sex from the boy. the boy was 17 at the time.
Now, replace in your mind Studd with a Republican politician, "boy" with 17 year old girl and maybe, just maybe you will get how horrific Studd's behavior was.
Do you believe that a 17 year girl has the mental capacity to have consensual sex with a 50 year old man who is her boss?
do you believe that a 17 year old boy has the mental capacity to consent to being sodomized by a 50 year old man who is his boss?
Honestly Jer, what are you doing hiding behind the law to claim that what Studd did is not rape? This is the reason why you Left wingers come across as such radicals.
Once and for all, regardless of what the law may or may not say, what Studd did IS rape. Studd was the 17 year old boy's boss. Studd was a 50 year old man who sodomized his subordinate!
And Cajun brought up a great point yesterday. While you are all worried over whether Studd committed rape or not, according to the law, you have yet to find out whatever happened to the Congressional page who was sodomized by his much older boss!!!
Face it,
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 10:40pm.
This is absolutely fine for leftist. The law says it's legal so according to them thats all that matters. This is the so called civil society we are supposed to accept today. And by goodness, dont you ridicule them for it, or they will punish you with the full force of the law!
The defense of this under the guis of "consensual" sex is a sick croc of crap. Leftist even reward this behavior, which is proven with his re-election.
Boudin..I'm not going to excuse your continued misrepresentation
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 11:07pm.
of my views which I have made crystal clear numerous times. I have patiently explained over and over that I'm not defending this conduct. I have emphatically pronounced it inappropriate and immoral. You have chosen to ignore that and instead repeatedly post the lie that I defend the behavior, finding it acceptable and just fine. If you wish to cite this as an example of my calling you a liar, please go right ahead. When you persist in posting lies you are inviting the charge.
Jer
Good grief,
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 12:04am.
Where, not in any replies to myself. No, you were to busy acting all butthurt.
If you wish to cite this as an example of my calling you a liar,
Now your making my accusations for me? Nice, Jer I wouldnt dream of calling you names, I dont think your fragile self esteem can stand it. Even though
When you persist in posting lies you are inviting the charge.
If I were to post this of you, you would consider it blasphemy. Just more hypocrisy from the leftist of NB's I guess.
So, lets see if'n I got this right: So even though it was legal for the congrescritter to sodimize minors, your agin it?
Well good, because when you bring up that it was "technically" legal, because it was consensual, you know Jer folks WILL get the wrong idea about YOU.
James2306 et al
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 1:00am.
Finding the history of the law in the District of Columbia has been a very frustrating experience. I think having access to LexusNexus for attorneys would make this process easier. So would walking into a law library in DC or a call to legal department for the District.
What I have been able to find so far is the following:
There was a concerted effort to repeal Sodomy laws in the District of Colombia in the last half of the 20th Century. Initially, it was decided DC would ignore Sodomy laws in 1972. Somehow I think this was more for Federal politicians and employees than the DC homeless. Then a repeal was sought but Congress blocked it in 1981. Eventually, the Sodomy laws were repealed in 1995.
Concerning DC's Age Of Consent definition:
So, it would seem that age of consent was 16 years and older in the District of Columbia in 1948. Furthermore, if we are to believe the following from the same web site, the move to repeal the sodomy laws was intertwined with an effort to keep the age of consent at 16 years of age, and not be raised to 18 years of age as had been proposed:
So, the age of consent had been 16 years of age since at least 1901. Note also, Marion Barry, no stranger to sodomy or crack cocaine, was intimately involved in DC's sodomy repeal legislation.
Based on these findings, a ~36 year old Studds having sex with a 17 year old male would not be against the law of DC with respect to sodomy or age of consent. With the old days of tar and feathering then being ridden out of town on a rail long gone, the politicians and activists made sure they could debauch minors without fear of jail.
One last point, in a NewsBiusters article by Tim Graham in October 2006 - nine days before Studds death, comes the following quote from that staunch Conservative Charlie Gibson, then a reporter for ABC, dated July 14, 1983:
Jer wanted proof Studds was applauded. I believe that qualifies.
*** "On July 14, 1983 the House Ethics Committee recommended that Rep. Dan Crane (R-IL) and Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA) be reprimanded for having engaged in sexual relationships with minors, specifically 17-year-old congressional pages.[1]" From Wikipedia.
Anyone know how to find out what changes have been made to a page on Wikipedia? The Studds/Crane scandal page on Wikipedia was changed June 1, 2012. I wonder if our discussion prompted the change. The Wiki article states the legal age was 16 year old. Could that be the change made? I don't recall that sentence there earlier.
changes have been made to a page on Wikipedia?
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 1:26am.
Nap, I think that was there, no doubt it was prompted and edited by our conversation/alist.
Wont open now in-fact. More editing?
Boudin
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 1:36am.
Looks like I didn't put a link in the link!
Try the Wiki link again. On the top right of the Wiki page you can View History. The June 1, 2012 revision was the last one since December 16, 2011. Any way to tell what was changed?
Ah,
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 1:46am.
So if you click on "undo" you can preview the previous version. I havent read it yet, and you dont have to be logged in to view them.
Oops, actually you can click on prev to see the edits.
Thank you, Boudin! The timing
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 1:50am.
Thank you, Boudin!
The timing of the revision seemed a little suspicious given this discussion. ;-)
The edit apparently involved the entries for Senator Chambers in
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 1:52am.
1989 and the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal.
Jer
Yeoman work per usual, strat..
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 1:58am.
Just one quibble: Jer had requested proof Stubbs was given a standing ovation on the floor of the House after his censure on July 20--not that he was congratulated by some fellow members when he left the Committee meeting a week earlier. I thought that would have been obvious from Tugboat's original post and my response.
Jer
Thanks, Jer
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 2:10am.
This research gave me a dull headache.
Words do have meaning. No smoking gun concerning a "standing ovation", but, the congratulations upon leaving the floor may very well have included those who stood and applauded Stubbs. Charlie Gibson did not detail what the congratulatory behavior entailed. Still, the reprehensible Left congratulated the reprobate Stubbs on and/or about the floor of the House. Classy.
My guess it was a few handshakes and words of sympathy and
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 2:16am.
encouragement. And, who knows, maybe a few reprehensible Righties joined in to congratulate both Stubbs and Republican reprobate Dan Crane.
Jer
Why Did You Do That, Jer?
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 3:10am.
Why did you commit the same offense you took Tugboat to task over?
I have not read one account of Crane being congratulated. Have you? Proof please.
Wikipedia states:
The footnote for the above references the Washington Post.
Maybe Tugboat conflated the Wiki entry with a memory of the NewsBuster's article from 2006. Maybe not. If you want to be precise, Gibson speaks of congratulations, not sympathy.
You purposefully committed the same type of error you accused of Tugboat. This one's on your shoulder's Jer. You should have left your victories alone. Instead, you've ripped the scab off before the wound healed for the sake of your ego. Bad form, Jer.
Jer, WOW!!! honestly, just
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 10:50am.
Jer,
WOW!!! honestly, just WOW!!!
You got in Tugboat's face AND Boudin's, pointed your finger at him, inches from his nose and you have demanded proof that Studd was given a standing ovation in Congress by his fellow Democrats. I think it has been established that this never happened. What DID happen on the floor of Congress was that Studd received support from his fellow Democrats, but no cheering for him.
Now, after two days of you demanding proof of Tugboat's original comment, you turn around and make the same accussation that Tugboat made, but about Republicans and Crane without any proof!!! REALLY JER?! REALLY?!
People can correct me if I am wrong, but the problem most of us are having is that like a good lawyer, you hid behind the law, much like Washington does all the time, to claim that an immoral, evil, disgusting, abusive behavior was not bad since it was not illegal.
AND now, you turn around and make the same accusation about Republicans and Crane that you caused you to have a heart attack when Tugboat made it about Democrats and Studd.
Now, what is clear, Jer, is that Studd was elected 6 more times to Congress, after he sodomized a boy and he received a standing ovations and cheers from his supporters/voters. Do you not find this disturbing?
Right or Left, Republican or Democratic, Conservative or Liberal, a 36 year old man (my current age) sodomizing a 17 year old is wrong, evil, immoral despite the law.
Again, if a Republican or Conservative male politician in D.C. were caught today having sex with a 17 year old female Congressional page, YOU along with countless of Democrats who hid behind the law to claim Studd did nothing wrong, would be screaming, crying, yelling calling the Republican's action perverted, saying, "so much for family values on the Right!" and demading that the Republican step down. AND Rightly so...unsure why the same was not asked of Studd and why you have hid behind the law to claim that he did nothing wrong.
Remember, it was you who said, "...it may have been sexual harrassment, but since he was not charged with a crime, it was not rape..." Jer, it was rape.
DOMA
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 05/31/2012 - 5:32pm.
I believe that the DOMA bill is unconstitutional, but not for the reason stated by the Court. It's unconstitutional because of it directly intervenes with the State's ability to govern their own citizens in things like State marriage license issuance. That's purely a State issue. The federal government shouldn't be involved.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Wow!
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 9:43am.
I was watching an old show on TV last night. If I'd have known my post would get Jer spun up like this I'd have stayed online!
Ok, so maybe it wasn't on the floor of the House of Representatives in D.C that Studds was cheered, but he was not treated with the scorn he deserved.
And regardless of what the law says, a 50 year old having a sex with a 17 year old, when the elder has so much authority over them, IS rape. If you need to ask why, or try to defend it with legality, you are not a moral adult.
Wow is right, Tugboat...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 5:24pm.
All I did was point out what I believed to be erroneous information contained in your post. Little did I dream it would provoke an avalanche of outrage painting me as a sick dimwit defending a child rapist.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 6:03pm.
You poured gas on the fire:
This appears condescending and confrontational. It also appears you were the first poster to personalize their comments towards another forum member - which contradicts your oft claim of not being the first to transgress against another here.
After you had made your point about the technical aspects of the law regarding the despicable behavior of the Congressman you continued to engage in confrontation with other posters.
Well strat...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 6:54pm.
If that is the applicable standard by which the initiation of personal attacks and name-calling is to be determined at this website, then I plead guilty to having violated it on occasion, including in this instance with respect to Tugboat.
But I think it fair to suggest that in doing so you are setting the bar awfully--even absurdly--low and at a level which you yourself have frequently breached and far more egregiously than have I.
Jer
Jer ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 12:20am.
The following is honest and well said:
"If that is the applicable standard by which the initiation of personal attacks and name-calling is to be determined at this website, then I plead guilty to having violated it on occasion, including in this instance with respect to Tugboat."
The following is why you get labeled a whiner:
"But I think it fair to suggest that in doing so you are setting the bar awfully--even absurdly--low and at a level which you yourself have frequently breached and far more egregiously than have I."
I realize that you believe, implicitly, what you stated; but then, little kids believe, implicitly, in Santa Claus.
'Nome sayin' ?
MD
I have no idea how you folks
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 12:33am.
Can continue to have these 3 yr old conversations with Jer? Every other month, someone has to take Jer by the hand and show him how the world turns?
Boudin ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 12:37am.
Repetitious?
Without a doubt.
Fun?
Indubitably. :o)
MD
Boudin
Submitted by MrShy on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 1:04am.
"I have no idea how you folks can continue to have these 3 yr old conversations with Jer?"
I essentially discontinued a good year and a half ago. It gets old with him.
- Shy's Mets FINALLY pitch a no-hitter!
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Nice to see you Shy
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 1:11am.
Hope to see more of you.
And that was one of my proudest NB moments, Shy....
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 2:38am.
That discontinuance thing.
Jer
BTW...congrats to Santana and the Mets vs. my Cards
Oh, and about the discontinuance thing: PLEASE explain to Boudin how it works. Dear God, I'm begging you Shy. Is there anything ready that I can buy from you? Music? Some old ShyWear? Anything?
Only three individuals have ever labeled me a whiner...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 2:26am.
MrShy, Boudin, and you.
And what is the common thread [no pun intended] regarding you three? Take a guess.
Jer
I would say, Jer, that the common thread, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 3:23am.
(actually a great pun), might be that to the three of us, you tend to get a bit prissy with your lefty presentations; build up to pissy when challenged; and end up sounding like a sissy having a hissy when you wail about how everyone else is so mean to you and you are merely defending yourself.
That would be telling, but for the fact that you, a lefty dude, be selling, liberal-left poo-poo caca, on a right site, day and night, even if typing posts quietly and not yelling.
Then you end up crying, cuz we conservatives ain't buying, your portside bull pucky.
Just a guess on my part, though. :o)
MD
You forgot about me.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 7:23am.
I once called you.... No. Wait, that was weiner. Sorry. Carry on.
Tugboat
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 1:10am.
Your ship has come in. Congratulations! (Yes, pun intended)
See my post here.
Yep. Bawney Fwank has
Submitted by texastommy on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 10:59am.
Yep. Bawney Fwank has "covered" the a**es of many gays in Washington. And he's gone where no man has gone before. A true hero and pioneer.
Maybe Obama should make him a
Submitted by texastommy on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 11:02am.
Maybe Obama should make him a rear admiral.