Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[flare up]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
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."

So you are applauding the threat of vigilante justice? Just like your pals the Clintons, no respect for the rule of law.

Are you really a lawyer?

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Hi Diane!

Hi.

[sgtclub]

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.

Agree 100%. I'll also take it a step further. The whole traditional whooing process is a form of the same transaction. It used to make sense and was more of a bargained for exchange when there was actually a dowry at the end of the line. But somewhere along the way our forefathers fucked that one up.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Agree 100%. I'll also take it a step further. The whole traditional whooing process is a form of the same transaction. It used to make sense and was more of a bargained for exchange when there was actually a dowry at the end of the line. But somewhere along the way our forefathers fucked that one up.

Whoa. You didn't get a dowry?

[taxwonk]

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.

We are all naught but thieves and whores. The game is figuring who is who.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

You are aware it's written in Urdu?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
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).

That would be walking away with two things.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Agree 100%. I'll also take it a step further. The whole traditional whooing process is a form of the same transaction. It used to make sense and was more of a bargained for exchange when there was actually a dowry at the end of the line. But somewhere along the way our forefathers fucked that one up.

I believe you mean "wooing." "Whooing" is what owls do when they want to get laid and it seldom costs them more than a dead mouse.

[Replaced_Texan]

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.

Well, I think also that there's also the notion that the transaction is not necessarily on equal footing for all participants. I generally don't have a problem with sex workers getting legitimacy, but I do have a problem with the sexual and monetary explotation of women, men and children by third party brokers. For whatever it's worth, most women searching for weathly husbands go into the deal on their own terms and generally reap the rewards for themselves. That's not necessarily the case for most prostitutes.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Agree 100%. I'll also take it a step further. The whole traditional whooing process is a form of the same transaction. It used to make sense and was more of a bargained for exchange when there was actually a dowry at the end of the line. But somewhere along the way our forefathers fucked that one up.

What process are you talking about? With the exception of some first generation Americans of Indian descent*, I don't know anyone whose parents were involved in the engagment. Nor do I know many people who didn't first live together before they got married or whose parents paid for the bulk of the wedding.

Are you just talking about an egagement ring?

*and I'm actually pretty sure a dowry was involved in those marriages.

[Not Bob]

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.

Please. In the GOP, restrictive rules on social issues are for people without money. That's the way it always has been, and always will be, so to people like sebby, that distinction is meaningless. Until some modern-day Savonarola that he helped create burns his last Dead bootlegs and pours his personal supply of Bookers down the gutter, sebby is perfectly happy to trade your right to watch smutty movies in a hotel for a few dollars worth of tax breaks.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Well, I think also that there's also the notion that the transaction is not necessarily on equal footing for all participants. I generally don't have a problem with sex workers getting legitimacy, but I do have a problem with the sexual and monetary explotation of women, men and children by third party brokers. For whatever it's worth, most women searching for weathly husbands go into the deal on their own terms and generally reap the rewards for themselves. That's not necessarily the case for most prostitutes.

Those risks are easily legislated away.

I'd go it one step further on those laws... I'd allow people to walk away from marriages without having to pay any alimony or settelement save child support if they can prove the spouse entered the marriage (a) just because he or she desperately wanted to be married or wanted a child or (b) for any sort of economic gain. They'd call it a "marrying for illegitimate reasons" law.

I say this as someone who just heard a really bad story from a close friend who got raked over the coals for a barrel of cash by a really, really shitty person. The divorce laws are really, really fucked up. He's a prince. I'd have trashed every bit of property and gutted every bank account and shipped the money to the Caymans before I'd give it up the way this guy did.

What the hell is the matter with some people? Didn't everyone's parents at least try to impart principles of deceny into their kids?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Well, I think also that there's also the notion that the transaction is not necessarily on equal footing for all participants. I generally don't have a problem with sex workers getting legitimacy, but I do have a problem with the sexual and monetary explotation of women, men and children by third party brokers. For whatever it's worth, most women searching for weathly husbands go into the deal on their own terms and generally reap the rewards for themselves. That's not necessarily the case for most prostitutes.

For the sake of argument, would that be true if it were legal? How much of the exploitation of prostitutes comes from needing a pimp for protection in a black-market transaction?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Please. In the GOP, restrictive rules on social issues are for people without money. That's the way it always has been, and always will be, so to people like sebby, that distinction is meaningless. Until some modern-day Savonarola that he helped create burns his last Dead bootlegs and pours his personal supply of Bookers down the gutter, sebby is perfectly happy to trade your right to watch smutty movies in a hotel for a few dollars worth of tax breaks.

I've never taken that position. Your party simply makes it impossible to vote for it. If your party would get its fucking head out of its ass and stop tying social liberties to liberal taxation and spending you'd have had my vote long ago.

And its pretty childish to suggest the connection between my self interest and your or my or GGG's ability to get PPV porn. I assume its a joke, but to the extent there's any real sentiment in that, lighten up, Chicken Little. Oh, and BTW, remember - you're rich. The rules don't apply to you anyway.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Now, to get myself back on RT's right side, here's George Bush on health care:

• "I mean, people have access to health care in America," he said. "After all, you just go to an emergency room."

linkwich