• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hastert Case Is Said to Be Linked to Decades-Old Sexual Abuse

But yeah, Clinton's sexual exploits were not a proud moment for him - and painful moments for his family. But as long as he wasn't screwing a kid or giving away government secrets - it was none of my concern. My concern was how this country faired under his Presidency. Pretty damned well. And frankly, he likely could be elected again if rules allowed.


He sort of could, you know. With Hillary, you get a 2 for 1 deal. :2razz:
 
Another unsubstantiated claim, my friend? ;)



I do believe the stigma of pre-marital hetereosexual sex is far less of a burden on males than it is on females. But it is still sexual abuse and exploitation even if the teacher is a 21-year old female. And by admitting that we don't hear about those cases as much, you are kind of proving my point. ;)



So a male teacher/female student relationship has less of a mental impact than a femal teacher/female student relationship? Without the stats to back it up, I find it really hard to believe. :shrug:

We're apparently talking about two different things. I understood you were referring to "preying" - clearly you're not. That's fine, carry on.
 
That's fair - I don't like anyone preaching to me about anything to do with the personal lives of individuals. But speaking of how you choose to live and what you believe in personally is fine, and strangely expected in American politics. Here in Canada, we don't give a rats ass what religion or personal life choices a politician makes but seems in America, a politicians personal life is dissected completely and held up for criticism. Here, the spouse of the Prime Minister is virtually invisible, unlike your First Lady. You seem to want to elect a "family", not hire someone for a job. When you do that, people tend to promote their family as a model and then they get in trouble.

A few years ago, I was at my local grocery store waiting to pay for my stuff through the cash. I usually take this time to laugh at the displayed tabloid headlines, but couldn't help take notice of the cashier talking to the lady in front of me in French. The cashier asked "Avez-vous passe des bonnes vacances, Aline ?" As soon as I heard the name, I looked over and there was Aline Chretien, doing some groceries on a Saturday afternoon. Imagine Laura Bush or Michelle Obama doing that???
 
We're apparently talking about two different things. I understood you were referring to "preying" - clearly you're not. That's fine, carry on.

Hm?

Teachers who exploit their students, no matter their gender or sexual orientation, are "preying." I just doubt the claim there are more homosexual incidents than there are heterosexual ones.
 
An oldie that is never not current:

View attachment 67184971

Maybe conservatives shouldn't set the bar that high. After all, they're human... no?

My favourite is thinking that abstinence education is a perfectly viable way to curb unwanted pregnancies and the spread of disease. History has taught us otherwise. Yet the moralistic drumming from the Conservtive side still beats.
 
Another wonderful family values politician....

if he had a relationship with a consenting adult, then he did no wrong ... even tho it was obviously important to him to hide the matter

but if he was a teacher/wrestling coach and took advantage of a student, as cheech & chong would say "whack his peepee"
 
No, those laws are crime-fighting tools. He intentionally evaded them. and, lo and behold. What have we here? Blackmail, extortion, tax evasion, accusations of child abuse. Had he just paid the guy and either paid the requisite gift tax OR given the guy a 1099, no harm no foul. Every business person in the United States is aware of those IRS regulations. Oh, wait if he'd done all that, his blackmailer would probably have come forward. Needless to say, everyone's in trouble now...
They are ridiculous laws and to enforce them with such fervor on what amounts to technicalities is a hatchet job. It's got legs as a story since it involves the formerly piwerful and money with hints of sex or at least the implication. But the bottom line is it was his money, he can spend it any way he wants, and it isn't anybody else's business.
 
Maybe conservatives shouldn't set the bar that high. After all, they're human... no?

..... Uh, yes. Being human and making mistakes, however, doesn't obviate the fact that they were mistakes. If it turns out Hastert did, in fact, sexually molest some kid, then it's not like we should collectively shrug our shoulders and say "well, everyone get's one screwup" or "well, we don't want to pretend like we haven't screwed up ourselves", the wrongness of the act is independent of the fact that he (and others) are tempted to it.

Conservative Christians set the bar high recognizing that we are going to fail to meet it. That's sort of central to the belief system, in fact, the acceptance that we are sinners in need of a savior.

My favourite is thinking that abstinence education is a perfectly viable way to curb unwanted pregnancies and the spread of disease. History has taught us otherwise. Yet the moralistic drumming from the Conservtive side still beats.

There is evidence for both arguments of that one, and I've seen competing studies, both by groups with intended results. From the conservative/Christian perspective, however, the question of whether or not a certain percentage of teenagers are going to have sex is immaterial to the question of whether or not you should tell them not to. It would be like changing the "Don't Text and Drive" campaign to the "Hey, while texting and driving, try to make sure to glance at the road every few seconds" crusade.
 
..... Uh, yes. Being human and making mistakes, however, doesn't obviate the fact that they were mistakes. If it turns out Hastert did, in fact, sexually molest some kid, then it's not like we should collectively shrug our shoulders and say "well, everyone get's one screwup" or "well, we don't want to pretend like we haven't screwed up ourselves", the wrongness of the act is independent of the fact that he (and others) are tempted to it.

Conservative Christians set the bar high recognizing that we are going to fail to meet it. That's sort of central to the belief system, in fact, the acceptance that we are sinners in need of a savior.

Do you think "liberal" Christians set their bars low? But I understand your point and agree with it, just don't believe that setting high standards is a uniquely conservative or a Christian thing. What is a bit unique is conservatives often mix politics and religion and I have a low tolerance for that. I don't look to politicians wallowing around in the sewer of D.C. or my state house for moral guidance, and when people wallowing in the sewer start lecturing about morals or religion, I tend to ignore them.

There is evidence for both arguments of that one, and I've seen competing studies, both by groups with intended results.

But the overwhelming bulk of the evidence is that abstinence only programs don't work.

From the conservative/Christian perspective, however, the question of whether or not a certain percentage of teenagers are going to have sex is immaterial to the question of whether or not you should tell them not to. It would be like changing the "Don't Text and Drive" campaign to the "Hey, while texting and driving, try to make sure to glance at the road every few seconds" crusade.

It's not that we shouldn't tell teens to not have sex. It's whether to inform them about ways to protect themselves and prevent pregnancy WHEN they do eventually have sex, which in 2015 means just about all of them before they are married. At the end of the day, sex education is about information, and in my view more and better and comprehensive, reliable information is better than ignorance on something so critical as sex.

Besides, it's not like teens need a message to have sex (which sex education doens't do) - they are bombarded every hour of the day by our free market system - movies, TV, ads, Facebook, instagram, Youtube, etc............

So in that context, it's more like changing the "don't text and drive" campaign to one that pleads with "Don't Text!!" period, when we know that nearly all teenagers have or will have smart phones and will text.
 
THere are different kinds of conservatives in the U.S. The social conservatives want to enforce their morality by force of law.

Bingo! By the way, while we are at it, when the government mandates you giving a reason for a large cash withdrawal, that proves the over criminalization of this country.
 
They are ridiculous laws and to enforce them with such fervor on what amounts to technicalities is a hatchet job. It's got legs as a story since it involves the formerly piwerful and money with hints of sex or at least the implication. But the bottom line is it was his money, he can spend it any way he wants, and it isn't anybody else's business.

He certainly can. All he had to do was report it as the amount might be subject to gift tax not to mention money laundering.
 
He certainly can. All he had to do was report it as the amount might be subject to gift tax not to mention money laundering.
So, we have to prove we're not breaking laws when we spend our money? How is that not prior restraint?
 
So, we have to prove we're not breaking laws when we spend our money? How is that not prior restraint?

Like it or not, we have an estate and gift tax in the U.S., and if you give any individual more than $14,000 per year, you have to report the gift and potentially pay tax on the gift. Alternatively, it's income to the recipient - gift or income, both have to be reported to IRS. The disclosure rules are part of the laws this idiot took part in drafting, and strengthening after 9/11 with the Patriot Act, passed while he was Speaker. If he'd complied with the reporting requirements, he'd have been fine.

Bottom line is he knew better. He has no one to blame but his idiot self who 1) apparently had sex with an underage person, 2) agreed to an extortion scheme, 3) didn't report the gifts, and 4) lied to the FBI about it.
 
Certainly not by presuming guilt and requiring the accussed to prove they are not breaking any laws.

That is not an answer, merely a deflection. We have money laundering laws, estate & gift tax laws. How would you enforce those laws among others like sending money to terrorists and other regimes under sanction? Hastert did nothing wrong by removing his own money from the banks, all he had to do was report it. He then compounded the situation by lying to the FBI.
 
That is not an answer, merely a deflection. We have money laundering laws, estate & gift tax laws. How would you enforce those laws among others like sending money to terrorists and other regimes under sanction? Hastert did nothing wrong by removing his own money from the banks, all he had to do was report it. He then compounded the situation by lying to the FBI.
The reporting requirement is absurd, law or not. The way to enforce anti-terrorism or anti-mafia laws is to get warrants for bank records when they are warranted, just like the way to get evidence of misdoings via internet/telephony is to get specific warrants for specific cases rather than collect everything.
 
Isn't this provision of the Patriot Act that Hastert is being charged under what he supervised the passage of to begin with?

Yes, I believe that's in the article: hoisted by his own petard
 
I think it's ironic that what caused him to be caught was the fact he withdrew money from 15 different banks in 10,000 dollar increments to pay the hush money, and because of the Patriotic Act, the banks could communicate with each other, and the large amount of cash withdrawn was a tip off. Some of those withdraws were labels as 'suspicious', which triggered an investigation.

What is ironic is he signed the act himself that got him caught.
 
Was there ever any doubt? Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, pays $3.5M to somebody they didn't ass rape.

But why wait 40 years to blackmail the man?
 
$3.5 million dollars is insane. But being a lobbyist that is small change.

If one is a creationist, why oh why did your God make the human orgasm more powerful that meth. Clinton succumb to it. Even Einstein is reportedly had a little romp with Marilyn Monroe.

The only difference between Meth and Sexual Affairs is that with Sexual Affairs you usually don't lose your teeth.

That depends on who you date, or who her husband is.
 
I don't remember any Dems being child molesters...

Look for the story of Bill Clinton going off to the island.

It was implied.
 
Back
Top Bottom