Barney Frank has been communicating and having sex with young boys and men for decades and openly..why are the Democrats not upset over that? Foley has only thus far exchanged sexually explicit emails with young boys and has come out as gay. isn't the Democrats tirades unfair and biased?
2006-10-05 16:58:19 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
3D FARMS - what planet do you live on, read some of the interviews done with barney frank over the years, he admits to it. now where's YOUR facts.
2006-10-05 17:06:58 · update #1
'deny, deflect and verbally destroy' the democrat's mantra and add to that 'never take responsibility for your own actions'
2006-10-05 17:08:17 · update #2
LISA M - back up how about facts, its all old news, barney franks public interviews, etc. obviously you have intelligence issues as your avatar so plainly points out but it is obvious you can type so do a web search, it really isn't that difficult...not even for you.
2006-10-05 17:19:22 · update #3
It's the election year, so they'll try to drag this out until November.
It's what they do.
2006-10-05 16:59:44 · answer #1 · answered by pidpit 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I'd like some back up for the Barney Frank allegations being sprinkled about.
I think it is disgusting that so many Bush/Republican apologists minimize sexual exploitation of minors with such remarks as "ONLY thus far exchanged sexually explicit emails with young boys,.."
ONLY?!
++++++++
The only thing I could find about Barney Frank is that he admitted to having paid someone for sex. It didn't mention that the person he paid was a minor as is the case with all of the individuals who have made allegations against Foley.
Thanks for noticing my avatar and commenting on it. As the saying goes, all publicity is good publicity when you are trying to shine light on something.
PS Don't forget to take your paxil before you go to bed.
2006-10-05 17:10:01 · answer #2 · answered by Lisa M 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Frank admitted it and was censured. He accepted responsibility for his action. He did not quit, however, he was re-elected by his district 5 times after his censure. Foley admitted it, but has blamed alcohol and claimed he was sexually abused to try and divert responsibility. He did quit, but he wanted to quit the house several years ago.
What Democrats are really angry about is the actions of the Republican leadership. They knew back in 2003 this was a problem. They took deliberate steps to cover this up. They also 'ordered' Foley to run in 2004 even though he wanted to quit. They didn't care that he was acting inappropriately, they only cared about holding onto a house seat.
Stop trying to make the Democrats the 'bad guys' in this one. The Republicans really screwed the pooch here, whatever happens, it is there own fault.
2006-10-05 17:28:25 · answer #3 · answered by Wundt 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The issue is pedophilia/sexual harassment. Foley would still be in trouble if the pages involved were girls. I'm no big fan of Barney Frank, but two wrongs don't make a right. Of course the Democrats tirades are "biased", it's their job to promote their party.
2006-10-05 17:02:24 · answer #4 · answered by michinoku2001 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The Republicans are suppose to hold a higher standard; what a joke, we know who they are doing, now the catholic church scandals are coming out of the Republican party, whereas lower standards like with Clinton, Ken Starr's investigation only cost us 40 million, what a deal. Maybe with all the lawsuits the republication politicians will create for themselves, we will get out from under the federal deficit that Bush had created. They aren't any better than anyone else, they get up in the morning just like you & me, & all put their pants on the same way, one leg at a time. They just have more money than brains.
2006-10-05 17:06:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes they are biased, unfair? Not really, the man deserves their anger. However, the real reason everyone should be angry with him is besides the fact the boy is underage, he tried to hide it. And his party tried to hide it. It's no different than what Clinton did with Monica in that regard. Shame on both parties.
2006-10-05 17:03:29 · answer #6 · answered by roamin70 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because if he is a Liberal, he is excused. They condone corruption, so how can they say anything.
You condone "murder" if you don't think the murderer should be punished.
2006-10-05 17:09:22 · answer #7 · answered by pixles 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I hope you have proof of that statement and what is your source ?
2006-10-05 17:03:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋