Who is involved in more sex scandals: Democrats or Republicans, and why?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Our system says 'INNOCENT' until proven guilty. The media today certainly fell short of that.

For a crime, yes that is true.

But one who pontificates about morality, attempts to pass laws doing what he himself does, describes his own (at the time secret sexuality) in evil terms and as evil, does not have to be prosecuted for any crime to be seen for what he really is and he should not be a spokesman for the causes he has championed.

But most of all, he confessed, so there is no need to believe him innocent. His lawyer referred to Foley's alleged communications. Did Mark Foley or did Mark Foley not admit sending improper communications? If he did, they are no longer alleged, they are admitted communications.

NOTE: There is a difference between a confession in a locked room with interrogators and one made only with your self-interest in question.

[Penni60 45]

Does any of their sexual behaviors "really" affect how they handle their offices? Have there been any discretions in that arena? I could care less who is screwing who as long as it is consentual (sp?). I care more about how the affair or whatever you want to call it affects his or her duties of the office they perform.

Do I agree with the shenanigans committed by past and present elected (appointed or court order) officials? NO I think it is morally wrong.

Should we as the public know every detail of their personal lives including who screwed who, again as long as it was consentual? No I certainly don't want them to know what goes on in my personal life past or present.

The bottom line is as long as it doesn't break any laws who cares who screwed who?

I have so many other things to get my dander up regarding our elected officals.

Global Warming

Arctic Drilling for oil

High Gas Prices

Education suffering

Social Security dwindling away

Trillion dollar deficit

Health care outrageous

Patient's Bill of Rights

The War in Iraq

Halliburton getting all the rebuild contracts

The aftermath of Katrina and how that was handled

These are just some of the things that keep me pissed off at the government. Not who they slept with or who they didn't sleep with.

Also, it is NOT our place to involve ourselves in that aspect of their lives people. The only ones that should be concerned about that is their significant others and their families.

I want to state again that "as long as it does not break any LAWS I don't care who they screw or have relationships with."

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Does any of their sexual behaviors "really" affect how they handle their offices? Have there been any discretions in that arena? I could care less who is screwing who as long as it is consentual (sp?). I care more about how the affair or whatever you want to call it affects his or her duties of the office they perform.

Do I agree with the shenanigans committed by past and present elected (appointed or court order) officials? NO I think it is morally wrong.

Should we as the public know every detail of their personal lives including who screwed who, again as long as it was consentual? No I certainly don't want them to know what goes on in my personal life past or present.

The bottom line is as long as it doesn't break any laws who cares who screwed who?

I have so many other things to get my dander up regarding our elected officals.

Global Warming

Arctic Drilling for oil

High Gas Prices

Education suffering

Social Security dwindling away

Trillion dollar deficit

Health care outrageous

Patient's Bill of Rights

The War in Iraq

Halliburton getting all the rebuild contracts

The aftermath of Katrina and how that was handled

These are just some of the things that keep me pissed off at the government. Not who they slept with or who they didn't sleep with.

Also, it is NOT our place to involve ourselves in that aspect of their lives people. The only ones that should be concerned about that is their significant others and their families.

I want to state again that "as long as it does not break any LAWS I don't care who they screw or have relationships with."

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

"Should we as the public know every detail of their personal lives including who screwed who, again as long as it was consentual?"

As long as we can agree that to be able to consent, you must be of age, then I agree 100%. If you don't care about the age, then that is my one point of disagreement.

[GeezerSue 7]

I don't care what kind of antics any two consenting adults--even elected adults--engage in behind closed doors, as long as I'm not married to either of them.

However, I got a real kick out of the Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker debacles because THOSE duds tried to tell everyone else how to live.

[Sunta 4]

You don't think adultery is bad? How about sexual harrassment, (Arnold, for instance)? I think it's okay to say those things are bad. They ARE bad. It's wrong to do those things. That "consenting adult" crap is just that...crap. Just because two adults consent to something does not make it any less bad.

I guess I was referring more to that I didn't think being Gay, crossdressing, etc. are bad.

As far as adultery, I don't feel comfortable making moral judgements on other people, so I can't really say if it's "bad" or not.

Sexual harrassment, yes, I would say that's bad. I tend to stick to defining "bad" as those things which are illegal such as sexual harrassment so as to avoid attempting to make my own moral code apply to other people. I don't have the right to tell someone adultery is bad as I don't have any idea what's going on in their marriage, what they may or may have not agreed to with their spouse, etc.

[lisah25 3]

However, I got a real kick out of the Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker debacles because THOSE duds tried to tell everyone else how to live.

For me, the current scandal is somewhat the same thing. I heard many times during the Clinton scandal that "Character matters". The Reps have positioned themselves as the moral party.

[Pinkylee 7]

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The fox is guarding the henhouse. Vote independent. Be neither Dem or Rep. I dare you.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

re: "Did Mark Foley or did Mark Foley not admit sending improper communications? If he did, they are no longer alleged, they are admitted communications."

I don't know, I passed out from sheer ennui prior to hearing such. And in the same vein as the recent Jon-Boni/Thailand confessed murderer...who most recently was released from such admission....and his own sense of shame and guilt, not to mention a veritable cascade of unknown-till-NOW events that he claims affected his judgement--which in itself concerns me greatly...I ain't jumping in to ANY conclusion....

It ain't over yet. Please wake me when it is. Act 2 and 3 are in the wings.

If if minors ARE the victims, I'll be most willing to add my own shoulder to haul him up to swing on the yard-arm....

The other Mark, not Foley, the one involved in the JonBenet Ramsey case has been released with all charges dropped, both in Colorado and California. If Mark Foley was only guilty of the same conduct as John Mark Karr, which is submitting a false confession, then I think that should disqualify him from being a legislator.

Both men need profession help IMO.

[Carlene 12]

I use sarcasm and wit, quite often

Me, too. You did pick up on that, didn't you?