NationStates Jolt Archive

Gary Studs has passed and I first heard of this on NPR. In their usual whisper, where I had to crank the volume up to hear what they were saying, they announced that Democrat Rep. Gary Studs had died and made mention of how he was the first elected openly gay congressman to serve.

They left out the part about him having sex with a young male Page which lead to his censure after a public outcry.

Considering all that is going on with Foley, one would think they would have mentioned that. It is certainly relevant.

At the same time they were having some big fund raiser boasting about how they give the news "straight" and are completely "unbiased".

Good old NPR.

Gary Studs has passed and I first heard of this on NPR. In their usual whisper, where I had to crank the volume up to hear what they were saying, they announced that Democrat Rep. Gary Studs had died and made mention of how he was the first elected openly gay congressman to serve.

They left out the part about him having sex with a young male Page which lead to his censure after a public outcry.

Considering all that is going on with Foley, one would think they would have mentioned that. It is certainly relevant.When talking about his death?

When talking about his death?

I figured this response would come. Remember when Nixon died? He was not treated with sympathy.

I figured this response would come. Remember when Nixon died? He was not treated with sympathy.

Ergo we should disrespect all dead people?

The news story is about a dead Congressman. They aren't obliged to repeat his entire life story or anything really relevant to today's news, just to say he's dead and throw in some fun fact to make it a little less boring. Normally, they wait until after a known politician is buried before discussing his scandals and misdeeds, if they really bear repeating.

Well, as nicely anecdotal about the contents of a broadcast we didn't hear might be, their news posting (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6268492) clearly points out that incident:


Oh look, and on that page they have the audio of that news item posted as well and it clearly discusses that incident.



In other words...... you seem to be suffering from an honesty gap.

I figured this response would come. Remember when Nixon died? He was not treated with sympathy.Perhaps not, but I doubt that every report on his death tried to tie something he did to something that happened around the time he died.

Oh look, and on that page they have the audio of that news item posted as well and it clearly discusses that incident.

Oh, look, on the FOX News page which discusses the Foley scandal, they claim that he is a Republican. I guess the multi-page topics dedicated to that gaffe are completely pointless. And there's a big difference between a small typo and forgetting to mention that he was not only gay, but a gay pedophile.

You know what, I really don't care.

Well, as nicely anecdotal about the contents of a broadcast we didn't hear might be, their news posting (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6268492) clearly points out that incident:


Oh look, and on that page they have the audio of that news item posted as well and it clearly discusses that incident.



In other words...... you seem to be suffering from an honesty gap.

Just saying what I heard. Don't you question my honesty. I heard exactly what I heard on the radio and have mentioned it. If they have since elaborated, then they have done the right thing.

Oh, look, on the FOX News page which discusses the Foley scandal, they claim that he is a Republican. I guess the multi-page topics dedicated to that gaffe are completely pointless. And there's a big difference between a small typo and forgetting to mention that he was not only gay, but a gay pedophile.



You'd have a point, if both the news story AND the audio of NPR's news didn't discuss the affair with the page.


Which I mentioned.



Is it a problem with reading for you? Or just with comprehension?

If he was smart, he drank a lot of icewater when he was on his deathbed, because it's hot and dry where he is now :p

Far worse than Foley. Never removed from Congress. Democrat. 'Nuff said.

Oh, look, on the FOX News page which discusses the Foley scandal, they claim that he is a Republican. Uh, Foley is (or was) a Republican.

If he was smart, he drank a lot of icewater when he was on his deathbed, because it's hot and dry where he is now.They buried him in Arizona?

"Gary Studs"...now that's a porn star name if there ever was one.

Uh, Foley is (or was) a Republican.

However, due to a minor spelling error on a FOX News TV report, his party affiliation was mistakenly changed to "Democrat" instead of "Republican." However, they did rectify this mistake on their website. Similarly, NPR neglected to mention that Studds was a pedophile, but mentioned it on their websites. The two gaffes are quite similar, yet the latter is much graver.

Ergo we should disrespect all dead people?

Only perfect people die. Have you ever been to a funeral?

However, due to a minor spelling error on a FOX News TV report, his party affiliation was mistakenly changed to "Democrat" instead of "Republican." However, they did rectify this mistake on their website. Similarly, NPR neglected to mention that Studds was a pedophile, but mentioned it on their websites. The two gaffes are quite similar, yet the latter is much graver.How is the latter a much graver mistake?

They buried him in Arizona?

Or, even better, Las Vegas.

He's probably in some afterlife or another, and he'll probably just end up reincarnated like the rest of us...circle of life and all that.

How is the latter a much graver mistake?

As it was a clearly intentional omission; they deliberately chose not to mention that he was a pedophile.

However, due to a minor spelling error on a FOX News TV report, his party affiliation was mistakenly changed to "Democrat" instead of "Republican." However, they did rectify this mistake on their website. Similarly, NPR neglected to mention that Studds was a pedophile, but mentioned it on their websites. The two gaffes are quite similar, yet the latter is much graver.

*sigh*

Still with the comprehension problem.


THE AUDIO FROM THE NEWSCAST IS AVAILABLE ON THAT LINK!!!!


Go give it a listen and come on back.


Oh, and the page he had an afair with was 17. Under state laws in DC the age of consent is 16. Ergo, he was not deemed a pedophile under the law, and any news station labelling him such would doubtless be sued for libel.

So I wouldn't hold your breath on anyone - including Fox - using that term.

As it was a clearly intentional omission; they deliberately chose not to mention that he was a pedophile.They don't mention every detail of a person's life when they discuss their death, especially irrelevant details.

Oh, and the page he had an afair with was 17.

He had been having the affair for over a year prior to it being discovered.

He had been having the affair for over a year prior to it being discovered.


Survey says...... WRONG AGAIN!

The affair did not come out until a decade later, and the page was 17 when it started.

Do you even read the news? Or do you just make sh*t up as you go?


Besides, it's not like the Republicans had a problem with Studs. After all, it was under their watch that they honoured him in 1996 when Congress passed the bill creating the 842-square mile Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary after him in recognition of his work protecting the marine environment.


Given that the Republicans had the majority at that time, clearly they felt that he was a man worth honouring.


Why do you hate the Republican party so much as to be so petty towards a man that they so clearly respect?

The affair did not come out until a decade later, and the page was 17 when it started.

Or so he claims. He would hardly admit that he was a pedophile unless there was overwhelming proof to that effect, and he was quite apt at secrecy. Whether or not there was conclusive proof of his nihilism does not change the fact that he is a morally abhorrent.

Or so he claims. He would hardly admit that he was a pedophile unless there was overwhelming proof to that effect, and he was quite apt at secrecy. Whether or not there was conclusive proof of his nihilism does not change the fact that he is a morally abhorrent.

Actually, so EVERYBODY claimed at the time.

And so it is reported at Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220801,00.html)


Now, if you have anything besides purile and petty slander to offer, please - put up or shut up.

However, given your track record thus far in this thread of having every single detail wrong - including your "they didn't find out for a year" BS timeline - I won't hold my breath.

He had been having the affair for over a year prior to it being discovered.

Even so, it was in 1973 and the kid was over the age of consent. The primary issue was ethical in nature; sort of like how a CEO will be censured or forced to resign if he's fucking secretaries or something like that.

I wonder if the Mainstream Media will pick up the story of Studs' death and run with it considering how his actions parallel those of Foley's. Except he was re-elected 5 times after the scandal broke and before retirement.

Gary Studs has passed and I first heard of this on NPR. In their usual whisper, where I had to crank the volume up to hear what they were saying, they announced that Democrat Rep. Gary Studs had died and made mention of how he was the first elected openly gay congressman to serve.

They left out the part about him having sex with a young male Page which lead to his censure after a public outcry.

Considering all that is going on with Foley, one would think they would have mentioned that. It is certainly relevant.

At the same time they were having some big fund raiser boasting about how they give the news "straight" and are completely "unbiased".

Good old NPR.

Of course the news about the two isn't straight! It's fruity as hell! ;)

Or so he claims. He would hardly admit that he was a pedophile unless there was overwhelming proof to that effect, and he was quite apt at secrecy. Whether or not there was conclusive proof of his nihilism does not change the fact that he is a morally abhorrent.

Or so he claims? It is quite an easy thing to check how old someone is. And that page was 17 which was legally above the age of consent. And the page told everyone so at a news conference. If the page were lying about his own age, don't you think SOMEBODY would have found out about it?

So Studd's actions were legal.

Sorry, this still doesn't get Foley off the hook.

Or so he claims?

We don't know every sordid detail of the affair. We simply know the point at which it was discovered; namely, when the page was 17. The affair had nonetheless been going on for over a year prior to the point at which it was discovered. I have said this before. We only had a preponderance of evidence linking Studds with the affair once the page was 17, and their testimony admits only this possibility.

Or so he claims? It is quite an easy thing to check how old someone is. And that page was 17 which was legally above the age of consent. And the page told everyone so at a news conference. If the page were lying about his own age, don't you think SOMEBODY would have found out about it?

So Studd's actions were legal.

Sorry, this still doesn't get Foley off the hook.

17 and 16. What both men did was abhorrent and not proper behavior for an elected member of the United States Congress. Both men are predators, yet somehow Foley is worse? and Studs gets re-elected.

*looks for congressional RESET button*

We don't know every sordid detail of the affair. We simply know the point at which it was discovered; namely, when the page was 17. The affair had nonetheless been going on for over a year prior to the point at which it was discovered. I have said this before. We only had a preponderance of evidence linking Studds with the affair once the page was 17, and their testimony admits only this possibility.

So you want to convict him on evidence that doesn't exist?

Sorry, but no. You admit that the evidence and their testimony says the page was 17, and thus legal. Everyone concerned with the issue at the time said the same thing. The only conclusion to be drawn here is that the page WAS 17, was legal, and you are making foolish noises.

However, due to a minor spelling error on a FOX News TV report, his party affiliation was mistakenly changed to "Democrat" instead of "Republican." However, they did rectify this mistake on their website. Similarly, NPR neglected to mention that Studds was a pedophile, but mentioned it on their websites. The two gaffes are quite similar, yet the latter is much graver.Since when does sex with a 17 year old qualify one as a pedophile? In most states the age of consent is that or lower.
Granted, it's an abuse of power to seduce a youngster you have power over, but not quite criminal.

So you want to convict him on evidence that doesn't exist?

Sorry, but no. You admit that the evidence and their testimony says the page was 17, and thus legal. Everyone concerned with the issue at the time said the same thing. The only conclusion to be drawn here is that the page WAS 17, was legal, and you are making foolish noises.

Well, it was still questionable in the differential of power of the two, so not the greatest.

The larger difference in Foley and this guy is the habitual nature of Foley, and that he was sending his mail to several boys, and the leadership was covering for him.

And, for fucks sake republicans, seriously-you don't get to get away with shitty things by finding other people who've done shitty things. Really, this is fucking embarrassing.

17 and 16. What both men did was abhorrent and not proper behavior for an elected member of the United States Congress. Both men are predators, yet somehow Foley is worse? and Studs gets re-elected.

*looks for congressional RESET button*

I do not, by any means, suggest that having an affair with a 17 year old is a GOOD idea. It was, however NOT ILLEGAL.

There is a great deal of discussion about what the legal age should be, if it should be done away with altogether, and so on. Our legal system has attempted to put together a code of law which will protect the greatest number of children while not being insanely restrictive of them as they become young adults. The determination of a legal age is the compromise that we live under. As such, what Foley did was ILLEGAL. What Studds did was not. Those are the plain and simple facts.

If a kid is 20 years and 364 days old, he can't drink. Does he suddenly become wiser and better able to handle it when he turns 21? Probably not, but the limit is there because at 21 he IS better able to handle it than at 17, and we need to put the line somewhere.

Same thing here. 16, not legal. 17 legal. Period.

And they also didn't mention in the news that moments before his death, Gerry Studds changed his name to Gary Studs. :p