Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Vitter's hypocrisy is the issue. But so is Jackson's. They're all part of a broader picture of infantile moralism running this country.

People fuck, a lot. And they fuck hookers and people other than their wives. Sometimes they fuck people of the same sex. The sooner we get past all the judgmental chidlish insecurities about sex the sooner we can move on to real issues. In that regard, people like Vitter out to be publicly caned for being such horrendous hypocrites. I hope his wife leaves him and he loses his seat and finds himself bankrupt. He deserves it.

But suggesting this is an exclusively Right problem is equally childish.

It's not an exclusive problem of the Right at all. See, most recently, Gavin Newsome. The Right in general, and Vitter in particular, though have more of a problem with the hipocacy, though, what with the unholy Jesus-freak alliance and all.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
It's not an exclusive problem of the Right at all. See, most recently, Gavin Newsome. The Right in general, and Vitter in particular, though have more of a problem with the hipocacy, though, what with the unholy Jesus-freak alliance and all.

You see, I couldn't care less who any of these folks have slept with, including Vitter. Sex isn't a problem. I'll go a step further - if people are going to insist on writing about who is sleeping with whom, I'd like them to focus on attractive people and not subject me to the mental images of some overweight 50-something polician and a gawky, barely legal teen.

It's the hypocrisy. I like the video of Vitter on "defending marriage" or the op-ed he wrote on Clinton being "morally unfit" for office. These are the things that matter. And if someone has similar quotes or statements from Dems, bring 'em on, and we'll all ridicule them. But, if you don't, let's not detract from the absolutely perfect beauty of Vitter getting dragged down by Flynt. And let's just pile it on until the guy crawls back into his hole so he can evolve a little more.

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Look at yourself, Slave. You're defending some hypocrite on the Christian Right who goes on and on in a holier-than-thou rant about how gays getting married is sinful while he's carrying on with prostitutes advertising exotic little adventures. It's his sanctimonious hypocrisy that is the issue

I wasn't defending anyone.

I was merely pointing out - with just one example - of how this kind of hypocricy is hardly limited to one side of the aisle, and to suggest otherwise is laughable.

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The point was that Slave was raising a minor scandal more than a decade old....

FWIW, it was publicly revealed during the early years of the Bush administration.

I know some of you like to think McChimpy has been destroying the Executive Branch for millenia, but it's really only been less than 7 years.

...involving someone never elected by the Dems to deflect from the Hypocrisy of the Right Wing Christian Nutcases that the Rs have chosen as a core constituency.

This is rich.

But you're right - when elected Democrats, for instance, are exposed for sleeping with underage congressional pages, they don't apologize, they celebrate it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
But you're right - when elected Democrats, for instance, are exposed for sleeping with underage congressional pages, they don't apologize, they celebrate it.

You see, for you it's all about the awful sin of sex, and that's what you keep bringing it back to.

But it's about the hypocrisy. Find me Jesse Jackson giving a speech on gay sex (or any sex) being a sin.

Or, don't, and just keep laughing at this chump Kitter. I understand that a Madame in NOLA has now come to his defense. Indeed.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Oh come on. I hope it's clear that affairs/using prostitutes/buggering boys is a bi-partisan thing . . . Then why get riled when someone throws Jackson into the group of preachy politicians who can't keep it zipped?

Hi Diane!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Please, get yourself elected a delegate to the Republican convention and make this speech on the floor. I'll start the pool on where the first stone comes from. (Dibs for me on Bush's next Surgeon General. )

What's wrong or absurd about my position, really? The only differences between a golddigger and a prostitute are matters of:

A. Business Model - The prostitute fucks in volume at a lower per unit cost; and

B. Transparency - The prostitute transaction is admitted to be exactly what it is. I do recognize, however, that the economic basis of the golddigger scenario is similarly obvious, but one would have to prove willful ignorance on the part of the "John" there.

If you marry someone for money you're a golddigger, and if you're a golddigger you're just an odd variety of whore. But if we can prosecute women for one variety of that business model, why not the other? Again, I can't seem to understand how this isn't a situation like the crack cocaine v. powder difference in the senetencing guidelines. The guy who can only afford two hours with a hooker risks arrest and embarrassment. The guy who can afford to keep one around for constant use at a whim, as you might a horse, is allowed to take her out and display her in the society pages.

Prostitution needs to be legalized.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
What's wrong or absurd about my position, really? The only differences between a golddigger and a prostitute are matters of:

A. Business Model - The prostitute fucks in volume at a lower per unit cost; and

B. Transparency - The prostitute transaction is admitted to be exactly what it is. I do recognize, however, that the economic basis of the golddigger scenario is similarly obvious, but one would have to prove willful ignorance on the part of the "John" there.

If you marry someone for money you're a golddigger, and if you're a golddigger you're just an odd variety of whore. But if we can prosecute women for one variety of that business model, why not the other? Again, I can't seem to understand how this isn't a situation like the crack cocaine v. powder difference in the senetencing guidelines. The guy who can only afford two hours with a hooker risks arrest and embarrassment. The guy who can afford to keep one around for constant use at a whim, as you might a horse, is allowed to take her out and display her in the society pages.

Prostitution needs to be legalized.

People have been making this argument for centuries and in some countries, it carries the day. However, because there is a strong moralistic bent to politics in this country that does not allow for the legitimacy of the commoditization of sex, it's never going to fly here.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
What's wrong or absurd about my position, really? The only differences between a golddigger and a prostitute are matters of:

A. Business Model - The prostitute fucks in volume at a lower per unit cost; and

B. Transparency - The prostitute transaction is admitted to be exactly what it is. I do recognize, however, that the economic basis of the golddigger scenario is similarly obvious, but one would have to prove willful ignorance on the part of the "John" there.

If you marry someone for money you're a golddigger, and if you're a golddigger you're just an odd variety of whore. But if we can prosecute women for one variety of that business model, why not the other? Again, I can't seem to understand how this isn't a situation like the crack cocaine v. powder difference in the senetencing guidelines. The guy who can only afford two hours with a hooker risks arrest and embarrassment. The guy who can afford to keep one around for constant use at a whim, as you might a horse, is allowed to take her out and display her in the society pages.

Prostitution needs to be legalized.

There is nothing wrong with that argument at all.

But in order to keep your taxes low you have chosen to ally yourself with a bunch of retrograde fundamentalists who will never let it happen.

You have a choice between sex or money, and you have chosen money.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
There is nothing wrong with that argument at all.

But in order to keep your taxes low you have chosen to ally yourself with a bunch of retrograde fundamentalists who will never let it happen.

You have a choice between sex or money, and you have chosen money.

So if the Democrats were to win my wife would suddenly start having threesomes?

Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[flare up]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy


It's the hypocrisy. I like the video of Vitter on "defending marriage" or the op-ed he wrote on Clinton being "morally unfit" for office. These are the things that matter. And if someone has similar quotes or statements from Dems, bring 'em on, and we'll all ridicule them. .

Hmmm, interesting. How is this for hypocrisy:

On January 27, 1998, then self-declared co-President and current Senator and Democrat Party Presidential Candidate Hillary was on the Today Show and had the following exchange with Today Show host Matt Lauer:

MATT LAUER: Let me take you and your husband out of this for a second -- Bill and Hillary aren't involved in this story: If an American president had an adulterous liaison in the White House and lied to cover it up, should the American people ask for his resignation?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, they should certainly be concerned about it.

LAUER: Should they ask for his resignation?

CLINTON: Well, I think -- if all that were proven true, I think that would be a very serious offense. That is not going to be proven true.

A very serious offense indeed. Taking her at word, as then co-President of the USA and a member of the bar of Arkansas, where was she in publicly advocating for the commensurate serious consequences for such serious offense??? Did she actively support the righteous impeachment of her perjurious co-President.

Hypocrisy indeed. Thy name is the Democrats!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
People have been making this argument for centuries and in some countries, it carries the day. However, because there is a strong moralistic bent to politics in this country that does not allow for the legitimacy of the commoditization of sex, it's never going to fly here.

I agree, except for your choice of "strong moralistic bent to politics," which I think is better written as "deeply confused, hypocritical, infantile and delusional McMorality."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by flare up
Lunatic ravings of a Sock

While you are busy beating up on Hillary for forgiving her husband, you may want to peruse this lovely sentiment from Vitter's wife:

"I’m a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary," Wendy Vitter told Newhouse News. "If he does something like that, I’m walking away with one thing, and it’s not alimony, trust me."

I think the woman has spunk. Maybe she can take his seat (and I suggest this entirely in the spirit of bipartisanship).

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
So if the Democrats were to win my wife would suddenly start having threesomes?

Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

You may want to subscribe your wife to my newsletter. Just saying...

[flare up]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Bush makes girl cry. (To his credit, he then tried to make up for it.)

children should be seen and not heard, which is also why the infantile whiners in the Democrat party should STFU!