2006-10-03 03:57:11 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Studd was a democrat and that makes hima visionary for having gay sex with a teen
Foley is a republican and emailed a teen ager and thats wrong!
2006-10-03 04:15:43 · answer #1 · answered by Shiraz!! 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The only differences are that Studds actually had sex with someone under aged, and was allowed to stay in Congress. Dems were in charge of the Committee at that time, and they didin't really take sexual misconduct that seriously.
Neither Foley nor studs should have been allowed to work another day in Congresss.
Democrats have a double standard, not only concerning sexual misconduct, but concerning just about everything under the sun.
2006-10-03 04:15:09 · answer #2 · answered by bow_wow 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Here are the differences:
1. Foley's case is harassment of underage teens, Studds (and the name's Gerry) case was consentual.
That's the only difference.
2006-10-03 04:31:31 · answer #3 · answered by Kookoo Bananas 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Studds just got a repremand, he was Democrate, House was Democrate. Studds actually had sex. Other than that it was about the same....and dont forget Mel Reynolds.....
In August of 1994, he was indicted for having sex with a sixteen-year-old campaign volunteer yet was allowed to continue running for re-election. In November of 1994 he was reelected. Reynolds initially denied what he claimed were racially motivated charges. On August 22, 1995 he was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. He resigned his seat on October 1, 1995.
Reynolds was sentenced to five years in prison and expected to be released in 1998. However, in April of 1997, he was convicted on fifteen counts of bank fraud and lying to SEC investigators and as a result, was sentenced to an additional six and a half years in federal prison. After serving 42 months of his 78 month sentence, U.S. President Bill Clinton commuted his sentence and Reynolds served the balance in a half way house.
2006-10-03 04:00:56 · answer #4 · answered by missourim43 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In all technical terms, due to the fact that the person in question's other was 17 years, it cannot be pegged as the same. Legally, not morally, but legally, Studds didn't do anything wrong, excluding what was outside the issue.
2006-10-03 04:40:31 · answer #5 · answered by Huey Freeman 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The only difference is that Foley embarrassed himself and his Political Party and resigned. Gerry Studds didn't embarass his party because that would be impossible, you can't embarass a Democrat, and he didn't resign either. Both of these perverts had, or were seeking homosexual sex with minor Congressional Pages
2006-10-03 04:02:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
That girl was 17. Over the legal age of consent. I still think it wrong, but it wasn't a crime.
Pardon me the boy. Thanks for the edit.
2006-10-03 04:06:57 · answer #7 · answered by MEL T 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋