Gov. Spitzer Linked to Prostitution Ring

[Lady Brave]

I didn't have any problem whatsoever with what you said, but one could interpret your comments as sweeping generalizations which is what hess was accused of. If hess had made the comment, "it just goes to show you that men will go to any lengths for a piece of ass", she most likely would have gotten pummeled for it.

[JoeRedskin]

Quite frankly, I want to know just what a woman has to do to justify $5,500/hour. I mean, I know I've been removed from the multiple partner scene for some time now, but I have had some pretty remarkable "experiences" in my day. As for those that did not have some additional emotional tie - there is not one that I would pay that kind of money for.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Quite frankly, I want to know just what a woman has to do to justify $5,500/hour. I mean, I know I've been removed from the multiple partner scene for some time now, but I have had some pretty remarkable "experiences" in my day. As for those that did not have some additional emotional tie - there is not one that I would pay that kind of money for.

You're paying a premium for a brand name?

[firstdown]

Well I went back to see how CNN reported this and also the Larry Craig story and here is a link to both. I'm just making the comparison to show media bias.
Sources: Money transfers spurred Spitzer probe - CNN.com
Funny they never mention his party.
Senator pleaded guilty, reportedly after bathroom stall incident - CNN.com
Craig story Republican party was second word of story.

[Hijinx]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well I went back to see how CNN reported this and also the Larry Craig story and here is a link to both. I'm just making the comparison to show media bias.

I am sure it is just the opposite on the Fox "news". Besides the real reason for the press to mention over and over again that a republican got caught with his pants down, when it happens, is that every year the GOP runs on a platform of "family values". But I guess "family values" just means hating gays and minorities.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Hijinx

I am sure it is just the opposite on the Fox "news". Besides the real reason for the press to mention over and over again that a republican got caught with his pants down, when it happens, is that every year the GOP runs on a platform of "family values". But I guess "family values" just means hating gays and minorities.

And you took offense to me saying that you'd have reacted differently if this was a Republican?

[Hijinx]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

And you took offense to me saying that you'd have reacted differently if this was a Republican?

Absolutely, because I don't think this "crime" is a big deal, like I didn't think Craig's "crime" was a big deal, like I didn't think McGreevey's affair was a crime. These are all morality issues. Its a case of a "righteous" few imposing their beliefs on others.(see prohibition) You assumed I thought this wasn't a big deal because of his party, but I wasn't even sure of the guy's party when I had all ready made up my mind that the media reaction would outweigh the "crime".

If some senator from a flyover state that I never heard of got caught with a small amount of pot, I wouldn't think much of it. I would make that decision without having to find out the senator's party affiliation. I am sure the media would do non stop coverage of it and the other party would call for the guy's head, but I wouldn't think it was a big deal.

If Spitzer had killed a guy, stole money from the government, or ran a dog fighting operation, I would say he should get every bit the punishment that anyone else would get. More in fact so that others would learn.

Had this been you or me chances are no one would have ever found out, this is a minor crime at most. Moreover law enforcement generally goes after the supply side of this "crime", much like drug enforcement.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Hijinx

Absolutely, because I don't think this "crime" is a big deal, like I didn't think Craig's "crime" was a big deal, like I didn't think McGreevey's affair was a crime. These are all morality issues. Its a case of a "righteous" few imposing their beliefs on others.(see prohibition) You assumed I thought this wasn't a big deal because of his party, but I wasn't even sure of the guy's party when I had all ready made up my mind that the media reaction would outweigh the "crime".

If some senator from a flyover state that I never heard of got caught with a small amount of pot, I wouldn't think much of it. I would make that decision without having to find out the senator's party affiliation. I am sure the media would do non stop coverage of it and the other party would call for the guy's head, but I wouldn't think it was a big deal.

If Spitzer had killed a guy, stole money from the government, or ran a dog fighting operation, I would say he should get every bit the punishment that anyone else would get. More in fact so that others would learn.

Had this been you or me chances are no one would have ever found out, this is a minor crime at most. Moreover law enforcement generally goes after the supply side of this "crime", much like drug enforcement.

What you don't understand is no matter what your personal views of weather this should be illegal it is illegal in todays world. What he has done is compromised his job and left himself open to black male because of what he did. What if those ladies came back and said we want you to do XYZ or we will go to the press and expose you. Then we now have a person compromising his position and trust of the American people because of what he did. Maybe when he was a prosecuter the only reason he was tough on prostitution was to run the other postitution rings out of business making the one he used more profitable and in return they would make sure his name was protected. Remember the only way he was caught was because of what he was doing with his checking accounts. If he was just some Joe off the street then he would not be in this postion to start with.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Hijinx

Absolutely, because I don't think this "crime" is a big deal, like I didn't think Craig's "crime" was a big deal, like I didn't think McGreevey's affair was a crime. These are all morality issues. Its a case of a "righteous" few imposing their beliefs on others.(see prohibition) You assumed I thought this wasn't a big deal because of his party, but I wasn't even sure of the guy's party when I had all ready made up my mind that the media reaction would outweigh the "crime".

If some senator from a flyover state that I never heard of got caught with a small amount of pot, I wouldn't think much of it. I would make that decision without having to find out the senator's party affiliation. I am sure the media would do non stop coverage of it and the other party would call for the guy's head, but I wouldn't think it was a big deal.

If Spitzer had killed a guy, stole money from the government, or ran a dog fighting operation, I would say he should get every bit the punishment that anyone else would get. More in fact so that others would learn.

Had this been you or me chances are no one would have ever found out, this is a minor crime at most. Moreover law enforcement generally goes after the supply side of this "crime", much like drug enforcement.

This from "A Man for All Seasons" by Robert Bolt:


William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!


The point is we don't get to decide which laws should be obeyed or enforced. It's not cafeteria style.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by Hijinx

I am sure it is just the opposite on the Fox "news". Besides the real reason for the press to mention over and over again that a republican got caught with his pants down, when it happens, is that every year the GOP runs on a platform of "family values".

So you're admitting we shouldn't expect much morality from Democrats, so when they do things like this, we should chalk it up to expected behavior?

I guess that's how Clinton survived all of his lies, crimes and infidelities and is even getting a second chance through his wife...he already had a track record of it when we elected him the FIRST time, so we just said "that's Bill being Bill."

[Hijinx]

Originally Posted by Buster

So you're admitting we shouldn't expect much morality from Democrats, so when they do things like this, we should chalk it up to expected behavior?

I guess that's how Clinton survived all of his lies, crimes and infidelities and is even getting a second chance through his wife...he already had a track record of it when we elected him the FIRST time, so we just said "that's Bill being Bill."

But again sex is not illegal. Clinton's blow job may have offended you, but the majority of this country saw it as nothing more than a political based attack.(thus his 90% plus approval rating)

And you can try to twist my words on what I said about morality, but I stand by the fact that the GOP plays the morality card to appeal to the Christan conservatives, but usually these "morals" are more about fear and hate. Bush basically won in 2004 on the "issue" of gay marriage.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by Hijinx

But again sex is not illegal. Clinton's blow job may have offended you, but the majority of this country saw it as nothing more than a political based attack.(thus his 90% plus approval rating)

And you can try to twist my words on what I said about morality, but I stand by the fact that the GOP plays the morality card to appeal to the Christan conservatives, but usually these "morals" are more about fear and hate. Bush basically won in 2004 on the "issue" of gay marriage.

Paying for sex and paying for the transportation of prostitutes across state lines IS a crime - what the hell part of that can't you grasp?

All this putting crime in quotes and differentiating between a "major crime" and apparently a "minor crime" is absolutely inane.

Apparently we're going to just leave it up to Hijinx to determine for us, on a case-by-case basis what constitutes a "major crime" and what doesn't. What a crazy idea to either enforce the laws on the books, or if you don't like the law push for new legislation. It makes a lot more sense to just decide which ones we think are worthwhile and ignore the rest.

The governor broke the law, plain and simple and he ought to pay the consequences like everyone else. Technically his resignation was completely voluntary, so no one forced him out or took his job from him.

It would be damn near impossible to effectively run the state and at the same time be tried for Federal crimes. It's in the best interest of the state that he resign and turn over the reigns to someone who won't be distracted by the legal mess that's sure to ensue.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Hijinx

But again sex is not illegal. Clinton's blow job may have offended you, but the majority of this country saw it as nothing more than a political based attack.(thus his 90% plus approval rating)

And you can try to twist my words on what I said about morality, but I stand by the fact that the GOP plays the morality card to appeal to the Christan conservatives, but usually these "morals" are more about fear and hate. Bush basically won in 2004 on the "issue" of gay marriage.

It was the Massachussets Supreme Court that made homosexual marriage an issue, not George Bush and not Christians. To the extent they were overzealous, well, that's their problem. It is the political left that seeks to change the status quo and so they are equally guilty of pushing a "morality" on others. All laws represent someone's conception of morality. The idea that you can't or shouldn't "legislate morality" is nonsense. You can't legislate anything else.

[4mrusmc]

Originally Posted by Hijinx

But again sex is not illegal. Clinton's blow job may have offended you, but the majority of this country saw it as nothing more than a political based attack.(thus his 90% plus approval rating)

And you can try to twist my words on what I said about morality, but I stand by the fact that the GOP plays the morality card to appeal to the Christan conservatives, but usually these "morals" are more about fear and hate. Bush basically won in 2004 on the "issue" of gay marriage.

Hijinx buddy, I know that you think that people are piling on here but really.... Clinton never had a 90% approval rating. In fact, until Bush HE had the worst approval rating ever of any president.

I know that we talk about kool-aide and how good it tastes, but lay-off the blueberry dude. Don't let your politics blind you.

I must say that I have really enjoyed this thread. And as a male, I do apologize to the ladies of this forum who have been made to feel a bit ambushed and insulted by others of this thread.

[4mrusmc]

Originally Posted by Buster

So you're admitting we shouldn't expect much morality from Democrats, so when they do things like this, we should chalk it up to expected behavior?

I guess that's how Clinton survived all of his lies, crimes and infidelities and is even getting a second chance through his wife...he already had a track record of it when we elected him the FIRST time, so we just said "that's Bill being Bill."

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner!