2006-10-08 02:14:14 · 6 answers · asked by Shiraz the truth detector 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Of course not, an 18 year old is of age, while the 17 year old may be underage depending on the jursidiction.
2006-10-08 02:20:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In 1973? Yes, Studds should have been prosecuted. Democrats did not cover for him, they censured him. He ran again and was reelected. I believe all the Democrats that were in leadership positions 33 years ago are now dead or retired. Revisiting that history will not protect vulnerable adolescents now.
The current case involves a guy who tried actively tried to seduce every high school sophomore that came under his wing for at least 10 years. Many underage boys are involved, not just one. Republican leadership knew about this for many years, and covered.
Your multiple questions on this issue just prove that Republicans are still refusing to accept responsibility for allowing this pervert to be in charge of young teens.
2006-10-08 09:20:29 · answer #2 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends upon where you live, and where the other one lives. But whatever the situation, if you're a neocon you'll find a way to blame it on someone else anyway.
2006-10-08 09:20:16 · answer #3 · answered by Bostonian In MO 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's okay for Democrats to have sex with children. The ACLU protects them.
2006-10-08 09:22:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, what happend to your professor shiraz PHD.
That was hilarious, you sounded like most of my professors
2006-10-08 09:21:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but killing 15,000 innocent Iraqis and 2,900 American soldiers is worse than both COMBINED!!!!!!
2006-10-08 09:19:13 · answer #6 · answered by Tofu Jesus 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋