In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 17:22:49 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 10:44:10 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


Nope..not if it occured in an area where the age of consent is over 16.

And getting the kid drunk..is definately illegal.

But it isn't rape of any kind.

Actually..in most states..it most certainly was/is.

So its ok to rape a boy that you got drunk, right?


So, what's the point of this exchange? She was there. You were not.

What is the point? Good question. Why DID you join in?

I used Studds as an example of Leftwing degeneracy..and you go
defending
it.

So you approve of degeneracy..or do you simply give leftwingers a pass
on it?

Well, in this particular case, I have direct information, which was in
short
supply.

And the voters in Studds' district clearly didn't think it was as serious
as
you
do, and they were there, and had a direct stake in the outcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds

"Studds received two standing ovations from supporters in his home
district
at
his first town meeting following his congressional censure." I actually
recall
reading about this back then.


Notice the part "following his congressional censure"

Why did Congress censure him? Jealousy??

For embarrassing them, one assumes.

How could they be embarressed if the kid was sober and of legal age?

Hummm?



Anyway, read the whole Wiki article.

Ive read EVERY article on this now fortunately dead, piece of ****.

Tell us how you *really* feel.... Anyway, his constituents apparently didn't
see it that way, for many election cycles.

But this is old news - the censure was 36 years ago. The statute of limitations
ran out long ago. What have they done *lately*? That'll be a new thread.

Joe Gwinn