Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
With fewer than 3 in 10 Americans approving of how W is doing his job, Ty might just be trying to provoke debate.

The problem with this approach is that in governence, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring danger, or marginalizing the voice of what is right for reasons driven by changing political winds. The job of President is to be the leader of the nation, not the leader of a political party.


Pulling a Ty from RT's news story.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The problem with this approach is that in governence, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring danger, or marginalizing the voice of what is right for reasons driven by changing political winds.

That's the problem with posting about prostitution? Huh.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
I would be surprised if there really a large number of pure consumers (those who do not manufacture, sell or otherwise provide drugs to others) who are convicted of felonies.

Remember too that we're talking about a federal prosecution here -- not state level.

DC is different than most jurisdictions because the USAO handles essentially all local crimes above parking tickets (including misdemeanor drug possession) but unless things have changed a lot -- which I doubt -- in most of the country federal prosecutors not only don't prosecute pure users, they don't prosecute dealers who don't meet a certain threshold of weight. Not enough resources. Those cases are kicked to the states.

So, to extend the analogy, the bottom line is that the DOJ (main Justice) isn't going to prosecute johns any more than they would prosecute a simple possession case. Not worth their time.

S_A_M

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Why do they (generally) go after the dealers and not the customers?

They realize that's pointless and might open an front no one wants open...

Nobody wants to start pointing that finger. It eventually leads back to your own house, and usually a baggie in your own sock drawer or freezer.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Who said you have the choose? Prosecutors seem to be OK with nailing drug users *and* dealers.

They don't bother with users. Those get plead out for slaps on the wrist.

Unless it's acid or mushrooms, in which case you can wind up facing 10 years for minimal amounts. Good ole Uncle Sam. Really got his shit together. You can carry around tons of a brain-rotting drug like coke, but acid or shrooms - non-addictive drugs that do little more than cause you to act silly and have arguably revelatory experiences (YMMV) get you serious jail time.

The Drug War is atrocious. But so predictable in its aims.

Does it ever seem that we're governing ourselves toward being narrowminded, simple and obsessed with toiling for material? Step back and think about our values. We're really fucking nuts these days. Hard work is great, but we're just running away from our lives.

The Drug War seems to want to protect most the mindset that keeps us in that cycle. It's almost like they want us to have cocaine on some level. They just really don't want us getting off the merry-go-round, and thinking about the bigger picture.

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You can see him here, going on about the sanctity of marriage.

According to Vitter, the best predictor of whether a person will have a positive or negative influence in society is the presence of a "nurturing" marriage.

I guess he just wasn't nurtured enough, aye? And it made him go off and do these awful things.

Isn't Rev. Jesse Jackson still paying off his baby momma?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Isn't Rev. Jesse Jackson still paying off his baby momma?

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.

So, you've fully embraced the alliance with the Christian Right. Are you proud of what your party has become?

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by 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.

So, you've fully embraced the alliance with the Christian Right. Are you proud of what your party has become?

Oh come on. I hope it's clear that affairs/using prostitutes/buggering boys is a bi-partisan thing. And when they get caught, the ones who have lectured about family values look the worst. Or if they get caught lying about doing it. Etc. Etc. Sanctimonious hypocrisy? Nothing new there. Jesse Jackson belongs in that group, just like Baker and whatever fool it was that cried like a little girl apologizing. I hope you aren't claiming that Repubs have a higher incidence of affairs. No? Then why get riled when someone throws Jackson into the group of preachy politicians who can't keep it zipped?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by 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.

So, you've fully embraced the alliance with the Christian Right. Are you proud of what your party has become?

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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That's the problem with posting about prostitution? Huh.

Legalizing prostitution would go a long way toward curing a lot of problems in this country.

We'd also attract a lot of male Muslim youths, but for all the right reasons instead of the wrong ones...

If you think about it, prostitution is already legal. Anytime anybody gets involved with another person not because he or she loves/likes/is attracted to that person, but instead likes that person's money, isn't that prostitution? What's gold-digging but prostitution by another name? You don't see anyone prosecuting that.

How is a short fat bald man with bags of cash who gets a young chick to glom onto him for $$$ any different than a John? Because he buys her services exclusively? Prostitution seems a lot like the cocaine/crack sentencing dichotomy. It's OK for the moneyed, but when the poor do it in its purest, quickest cheap and most honest form, it's a hanging offense.

If the health care exec down the street from me can have a trophy wife who lays under him for cash, why can't Joe Blow get a prostitute on Friday night?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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.

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

Look at the little point you bury above. It's the key point. For all Jackson's flaws, he's never made a sanctimonious speach like that Vitter speach. There is a special place in hell for the philandering little Christian Taliban the R's so fondly embrace.

And if someone who doesn't make these speeches hangs around the cat houses or has a thing with an aide - well, that happens, and it's not a big deal.

It's not about the sex, it's about the hypocrisy. Try to deflect it all you want, but it's a major R problem, because you guys are the ones who elect the Christian Taliban.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Oh come on. I hope it's clear that affairs/using prostitutes/buggering boys is a bi-partisan thing. And when they get caught, the ones who have lectured about family values look the worst. Or if they get caught lying about doing it. Etc. Etc. Sanctimonious hypocrisy? Nothing new there. Jesse Jackson belongs in that group, just like Baker and whatever fool it was that cried like a little girl apologizing. I hope you aren't claiming that Repubs have a higher incidence of affairs. No? Then why get riled when someone throws Jackson into the group of preachy politicians who can't keep it zipped?

It's not about the sex.

It's about those lovely speeches, tossing stones at Sodom, Gomorah, and Massachusetts.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Legalizing prostitution would go a long way toward curing a lot of problems in this country.

We'd also attract a lot of male Muslim youths, but for all the right reasons instead of the wrong ones...

If you think about it, prostitution is already legal. Anytime anybody gets involved with another person not because he or she loves/likes/is attracted to that person, but instead likes that person's money, isn't that prostitution? What's gold-digging but prostitution by another name? You don't see anyone prosecuting that.

How is a short fat bald man with bags of cash who gets a young chick to glom onto him for $$$ any different than a John? Because he buys her services exclusively? Prostitution seems a lot like the cocaine/crack sentencing dichotomy. It's OK for the moneyed, but when the poor do it in its purest, quickest cheap and most honest form, it's a hanging offense.

If the health care exec down the street from me can have a trophy wife who lays under him for cash, why can't Joe Blow get a prostitute on Friday night?

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. )

[Shape Shifter]

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.

Gotta love Larry Flynt.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Bush makes girl cry. (To his credit, he then tried to make up for it.)