GOP Senator fathers child with daughter of another GOP Senator

For those of you who think Senator Menendez is somehow representative of ALL Democrats:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...id=msnhp&pos=1

Is Domenici somehow representative of all Republicans?

Hell, everyone knows Democrats have all the fun.

Was the Domenici paramour an underage teen as in the Menendez scandal ?

I don't think so; but leave it up to the Democrats to equivocate the rape of an underage teen with consensual relations between 2 adults....Democrats are sick motherfucking scum; after all they have sexual predator Bill Clinton (another liar) and (forbidden topic) sex predator Harry Reid as their leaders.

For those of you who think Senator Menendez is somehow representative of ALL Democrats:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...id=msnhp&pos=1

Is Domenici somehow representative of all Republicans? Originally Posted by ExNYer

Was Michelle Laxalt, the woman he had the baby with 30 years ago, underage?

For those of you who think Senator Menendez is somehow representative of ALL Democrats:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...id=msnhp&pos=1

Is Domenici somehow representative of all Republicans? Originally Posted by ExNYer

NO!

It is representive of all Senators.

It's how they mate and reproduce.

However, the breeders do look at traits and not party affiliations.

Some how Domenici didn't get neutered.

Does David Vitter (R-LA) DRESSING like a baby and wearing a diaper while paying for sex count as underage sex? Then, there is the case of his protecting and refusing to fire an aide guilty of abusing girlfriends not once but TWICE!

Actually, since the second offense was with a different girlfriend, he finally let the aide go after relentless pressure from anti-abuse groups and media scrutiny. The aide was convicted.

Vitter merely apologized for hiring hookers to have baby sex with him by holding a press conference and confessing in front of the media with his wife by his side. I wonder if he makes his wife buy the diapers now?

Was the Domenici paramour an underage teen as in the Menendez scandal ?

I don't think so; but leave it up to the Democrats to equivocate the rape of an underage teen with consensual relations between 2 adults....Democrats are sick motherfucking scum; after all they have sexual predator Bill Clinton (another liar) and (forbidden topic) sex predator Harry Reid as their leaders. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Stupid as a rock.

Doe Mark Foley, Republican from Florida trying to ass-rape teenage boys count on your selectively silly list? Asshole.

Was the Domenici paramour an underage teen as in the Menendez scandal ?

I don't think so; but leave it up to the Democrats to equivocate the rape of an underage teen with consensual relations between 2 adults....Democrats are sick motherfucking scum; after all they have sexual predator Bill Clinton (another liar) and (forbidden topic) sex predator Harry Reid as their leaders. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Veeeeerrry selective morality, huh?

My question isn't limited to underage sex. Cheating on your wife and knocking up our colleagues daughter isn't exactly walking the straight and narrow.

There was a lot of "Democrats are scum" attitude in the Menendez thread - that was based on party affiliation, not on the age of the girl.

So what if I had used Bill Clinton as an example instead?

If Bill Clinton represented all Dems, does Domenici represent all Republicans?

What bill clinton did with Juanita Brodderick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Corbin wasn't consensual; and certainly the same with Menendez....

But typical liberal who tries to equivocate bad behavior.

What bill clinton did with Juanita Brodderick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Corbin wasn't consensual; and certainly the same with Menendez....

But typical liberal who tries to equivocate bad behavior. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

And you're trying to conflate bad behavior. You're confused on "consensual" when it comes to sex with teenagers.

Statutory rape IS consensual sex. If it wasn't, then it would be regular old forcible rape. Sex with a sixteen year old is defined as a crime ("statutory" rape) DESPITE the fact that the girl was perfectly willing to participate.

So, NO, what Menendez is accused of doing, while sleazy, is NOT forcible rape. So it is NOT like the Juanita Broderick case.

In any event, I was referring to Bill and Monica, which definitely happened, and not the other cases which are dubious he-said, she-said claims.

Moreover, Paula Jones (Corbin) accused Clinton of sexual harassment (flashing his dick) not rape. She never accused him of any type of forcible sexual contact.

Kathleen Willey's case is shot full of holes and she had a history of lying.

And the Juanita Broderick case did involve an accusation of rape, but it contradicted her own earlier story that she had never been harassed by Clinton.

Clinton was a sleaze, but there is no credible evidence he ever forcibly raped a woman.

Nope; again you are applying the legal standard...I have told you,,this isn't a court of law but the court of public opinion....In most people's minds an elderly man having sex with an teenage girl is beyond "sleazy." She is too young to be giving her consent freely, especially if the events occurred as described, where she is taken to someone's house, by a "manager" presumably and paid for sex.....That isn't consensual sex......she was too young to freely give consent....it is rape.....

Again, what was the age of Dominici's fling ?

Nope; again you are applying the legal standard...I have told you,,this isn't a court of law but the court of public opinion...
Wow, holy shit. You have your own definition of rape? Bullshit.

The terms you are using - "rape", "consensual", "underage" are LEGAL terms, not court of public opinion terms. You don't get to use them like you are discussing a crime and then say "this isn't a court of law" when you are shown to be wrong. You don't get to have your own special set of definitions.

In most people's minds an elderly man having sex with an teenage girl is beyond "sleazy."She is too young to be giving her consent freely, especially if the events occurred as described, where she is taken to someone's house, by a "manager" presumably and paid for sex.....That isn't consensual sex......she was too young to freely give consent....it is rape....
You're trying to have it both ways. You're trying to make it sound like forcible rape when it was consensual sex with an underage girl.

There are different grades of statutory rape. Sex with 15-17 year olds is generally considered consensual because the teenager is old enough to know what they are doing. Nonetheless, if is illegal because it is against public policy.

In order for the minor to be too young to consent, they have to be REALLY young, like 12 years old. Then it falls in the category of forcible rape - in the same way you could be accused of committing rape if a woman is passed out drunk.

This girl was clearly old enough to consent..

Again, what was the age of Dominici's fling? Over 18, I assume, but who cares? It was still sleazy. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Your new name is Humpty-Dumpty:

“When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”

Veeeeerrry selective morality, huh?

My question isn't limited to underage sex. Cheating on your wife and knocking up our colleagues daughter isn't exactly walking the straight and narrow.

There was a lot of "Democrats are scum" attitude in the Menendez thread - that was based on party affiliation, not on the age of the girl.

So what if I had used Bill Clinton as an example instead?

If Bill Clinton represented all Dems, does Domenici represent all Republicans? Originally Posted by ExNYer

Agreed, nether is walking the straight and narrow. But you shouldn't equate being a slimball to a criminal and then make the leap that they are equal.

IMO this is a bogus arguement to compare Bad behavior to criminal activity...and then to make the leap to Clintons vs Domenici behavor. Which would be a more fair comparison.

You compare the commonalities of the first comparison (both bad) and then then give it the same weight in the second comparion (Clintons vs Domenici)

Espescially with one of them happening over 30 years ago to someone who is retired.

Try again.

Agreed, nether is walking the straight and narrow. But you shouldn't equate being a slimball to a criminal and then make the leap that they are equal.

IMO this is a bogus arguement to compare Bad behavior to criminal activity...and then to make the leap to Clintons vs Domenici behavor. Which would be a more fair comparison.

You compare the commonalities of the first comparison (both bad) and then then give it the same weight in the second comparion (Clintons vs Domenici)

Espescially with one of them happening over 30 years ago to someone who is retired.

Try again. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

You are missing the point in the same way that Whirly does.

Partisans like to point to the bad behavior of any member of the opposite political group as representative of most or all members of the opposition party. They are remarkably silent when the sleaze/crime is in their own party.

I used Menendez as an example because he is in the news right now and was already the subject of 2 threads in the last few days.

The exact seriousness and/or equivalence of the charges is an irrelevant distraction to the basic issue of the hypocrisy of a partisan's selective moral outrage at the other party while turning a blind eye to his own party.

Why is accusing someone of raping a minor without proof ok in you numbnuts playbook?

What should happen IMHO is that folks with loose tongues that play tricks with the truth should be made to lose them when they accuse folks wrongly.

Or in you dipshits case , your typing finger!