Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

It's all the fault of a Gay Democrat Senator in 1845

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 10:19 AM
Original message
It's all the fault of a Gay Democrat Senator in 1845
I heard that there was some Democrat Senator who might have been gay back then.

That's the real cause of all of these problems going on now. The GOP is not to blame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
1. It was 1973, the senators name was Gerry Studds
Very unforunate name all things considered. In 1973 he had an illicit affair with a page. In 1983 he and a Republican (who had fooled around with a girl page) were censured. He and the page stood together and said that what had happened between them was nobodies business.

Republicans are telling this story with a few creative ommisions. The forget to mention that it was a Democratic Congress who censured him. They also pretend that they got rid of Foley when the truth is he resigned. Who knows how it would have gone if he had stayed and fought. Of cours they also leave out the 10 year gap between crime and trial, and the fact that the page defended Studds.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Consenting Adults Having an Affair
Edited on Thu Oct-05-06 10:28 AM by stepnw1f
I believe the page was 17. It was not a case of pedophilia....

A Right Winger already tried using Gerry Studds as fodder for his argument on another board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. the "coward".... lolol... nice baiting (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. I'm just saying you clearly have an opinion about me
But don't want to admit it outloud. Just want to drop snarky hints.

If I thought you were, say, a coward, I'd just call you a coward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Aha.... That's Cool.... I Just Don't Do So Due to Rules
not a coward..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. If you really think I am what you think I am why aren't you alerting the
Mods? I mean if I'm that, aren't I a danger to everybody here?

It's like you don't really care about your fellow DUers.

or you're a coward.

Also let me ask you directly - Short of changing all my opinions how could I prove to you I'm not what you think I am?

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Now That You Keep Trying to Bait Me, Maybe I Should
But how does that make me a coward for NOT alerting the mods? Out of curiosity, how would you know I never have alerted the mods.... And also, why do you feel the need to try to prove anything to me?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. So you enjoy being accused of things you are not guilty of?
I am sorry to admit I am not quite as big a person as you, I find the experience unpleasent. I've participated in this community several years now, donated money to it, and I don't like people implying that I'm a traitor and a backstabber. I'm either a part of this community or Im not, but I certainly don't like the feeling that I'm one bad post away from getting tombstoned.

Maybe you have alerted the mods, but i'm certainly still here.

And to clear it up, you are a coward because you won't level your accusation directly, you are a less than perfect community member, assuming you haven't alerted the mods, because you see a traitor and a backstabber associating with your fellow DUers and choose to do nothing about it. Think about how many people I'm subtly corrupting (apparently) and you just sit back and make the occasionally snarky reply?

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. I'm just slightly confused now. Just yesterday, in regard to the
Foley mess I read over and over and over where a 17-year old IS NOT an adult.

Now I read (in connection with Gerry Studds) that it was not a crime, it was consensual sex and they were consenting adults.

What's the real deal here? If it's wrong for one it's wrong for the other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. The situations aren't directly parrallel
And Studds was censored by a Democratic Congress.

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. That sure doesn't answer my question. How are they not
'parrallel'? 17 is 17.

I realize Studds was censored by a Dem Congress. That's to our credit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. No... That Was Mistake
I thought the page was 18 until I found his age on Wikipedia as being 17. So technically, he was not an adult.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #8
21. Studds didn't prey on boy after boy after boy
And I think Studds was morally wrong to have a relationship with a page. However, it isn't pedophilia because Studds wasn't preying on pages for years and years. At the time, apparently the page wasn't under age either so no crime was committed. He was censured and that's about all that could be done. He didn't feel he'd done anything wrong and his constituents saw it as a personal relationship that had gone on for some time.

Dan Crane, on the other hand, had an extra-marital affair in addition to the fact the girl was 17. Different set of circumstances and he was voted out. If Republicans had let just let Monica sort of fester a while, the people may have come to the conlusion that he was morally bankrupt. Instead, they got up on their high horse and it backfired. Democrats need to be careful of that in this case too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Their current use of that is what inspired my post
If they have to go back decades to justify their own actions now, they're really grasping at straws.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. Tiberius & Caligula were Republican Perverts. So there!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. A very astute woman on cspan the other morning mentioned that
if the repukes are going to keep referring back to this Studds guy, then they should look as far back as Strom Thurmond (rest his soul). He was considered a pedophile by impregnating their maid at 16.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
2. GOP Picking on a Minority Group Again
It's all they ever do... bigotry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
7. Well, if Gore Vidal is to be believed
then there was a gay Democratic president, James Buchanan, the only president never to marry, just before Lincoln.

(In his book Lincoln, Vidal portrays Washington gossips referring to Buchanan as "Miss Nancy.")
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #7
17. Impeach Buchanan
....er, I guess it's too late for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleedingheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-06-06 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
23. he also lived with another man before he became president
but that man died before buchanan was elected....had that not happened we might have had a gay couple living in the White House...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
20. Lincoln??? You linked it to Lincoln?
Oh, guess not he was Republic.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-06-06 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Lincoln was only gay in his Democrat Moments
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 07:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC