Bravo to the New York Times for its gritty investigative reporting tracking down the prostitute involved in former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's downfall. Guess someone was paying attention to the memo about having attributable sources for sex scandal stories.
Hats off to Matt Drudge too for hitting the trifecta for the highest concentration of tabloid sleeze oozing off his webpage this month. First he publishes a leaked photo provided by the Clinton campaign showing Barack Obama in "muslim" village garb. Then he blows the cover of Prince Harry who was gallantly fighting for his country in Afghanistan. And now we're treated to "The Woman Who Rocked NY".
Accolades must be handed out to every cable news network and newspaper leading with this story. Because there is nothing in the world going on that is more newsworthy than splashing photos from a hooker's Myspace page.
Guess we can all eagerly await her tell-all book deal and nude photo shoot in Playboy or Hustler. Isn't that how these stories all turn out?
If there are any other customers of the prostitution ring who engaged in money laundering or arranging to transport prostitutes accross state lines or national borders, those folks need to be prosecuted as well.
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 13, 2008 05:45 AMLast I had heard old Spitzer didn't have much of a choice. The Rep in the state were going to impeach him if he didn't quit. (and they damn well should have too)
What a creep!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 13, 2008 06:49 AMLook, I really don't care about a little doorknob polishing...but what kind of monster is this guy ?!?
Posted by: John Bailo on March 13, 2008 07:21 AMThe common garden variety American halfwit wants attention, just like everyone wants a certain amount of attention, but the common garden variety American halfwit cannot make a distinction between attention given for doing something well and doing something weird. Given this and the fact that doing something well generally takes effort, which is like kryptonite to the common garden variety American halfwit, we are about to witness herds of common garden variety American halfwits lose their collective mind over some common garden variety tramp.
Hate to tell you, but BJ's in the Oval are not illegal. There's a difference between getting caught breaking a law and having sexual trysts in your office.
It's harder to argue in favor of breaking a law that you helped enforce, though it sure is funny when your an avid anti-gay crusader and get caught hitting on other men. The bigger the hypocrisy the harder the fall.
All Drudge is, is a news clearinghouse. He gathers stories from various sources and posts them.
Guess people must still be pissed at him for releasing the story that Newsweek(iirc) refused to print. You know...the cigar, the President and the "job"
Posted by: Frank on March 13, 2008 07:57 AMJDH couldn't have said it better myself.
Posted by: REBEL on March 13, 2008 07:57 AMThe KLOWNS always seem to defend their own guy.
Remember, Spitzer was Gregoire's Fundraising Headliner for the huge 1200 attendee gala last election. Since they are friends, perhaps Christine will invite Smilin' Eliot back for an encore???
It would be the right thing for her to do...as Eliot is a "victim" of Karl Rove...not his own actions.
Out of curiosity Slathering what has Barney Frank done? The rest of the individuals were caught up in sex scandals (ala Bob Packwood). Do you know something about Barney Frank that the general public/MSM does not?
1) What does this have to do with Spitzer
2) I'm sure the tabloid in Australia does not get nearly as many web hits as say the DrudgeReport.com
3) I'm sure Matt Drudge will be more than happy to claim he broke the news on Prince Harry.
[sigh]
Cato, you're bright enough to recognize what's wrong with this argument. Why did you choose to use it anyway?
How about that, he was. You learn something new every day. At $80, that's pretty cheap compared to what Spitzer paid. =)
Here's a review from Amazon - Paul Johnson takes on a line-up of first class intellectuals spanning three centuries, and declares: Beware Intellectuals.
By shining a bright light on the dark side of these very public figures - on their greed, their lust and promiscuity, their deceit and arrogance, and especially the despicable way they treated those around them, including and especially their spouse and children while proclaiming selfless love for humanity, Johnson made a strong case on how only human these luminaries truly were. And posed the question as to how fit intellectuals really were in preaching to others how they should manage their affairs.
You will find an idol or two of yours deflated as you read Johnson's well-researched book. Some would argue that the merits of a man's ideas are independent of the man himself. This is certainly true with scientific ideas (or theories), which can be empirically validated. Albert Einstein, Edward Teller, or even James Watson were not necessarily what one wants for close friends, but one would not reject the theories of relativity, thermonuclear reaction and the double-helical structure of DNA for the personal failings of these scientists. On the other hand, one must wonder aloud the value of the social theories proclaimed by the intellectuals who somehow saw their theories fit for the masses but not for themselves!
Perhaps this book is one-sided. It mostly picked on the leftists. I am afraid the raw statistics are also quite one-sided. It is the vision of the left to see themselves as an anointed group who are destined to "run things" to make a better world. Regardless, I am inclined to think that the intellectuals on the right are just as hypocritical, if fewer in number.
One key point well argued in this book is that the talent of people in one area, which renders them famous, does not give them license to mentor mankind in all affairs. One sees this folly everyday with many Hollywood and other media celebrities.
"Intellectuals" is a joy to read. While Johnson harshly critiqued the dark side of these intellectuals, he also presented them in the proper historical context and gave due to the epochal importance of their work where it was appropriate. Johnson's writing style was graceful and engaging. Like a good historian, he was meticulous with facts and data, which, though selected to support his thesis, were factual nonetheless. This book, besides being informative, has given me quite a refreshed perspective on intellectuals. It is one of those books that you read and think about again and again because it is rightly provocative.
Posted by: JDH on March 13, 2008 08:24 AMI'm not following you here. Are you saying I should let him be wrong and equate a former President of doing something illegal that he did not?
Haha, how did any of this hurt you personally? If anything it's selling papers/magazines and giving pseudo-intellectuals left and right to express their opinion. Demand increases and these newspapers/magazines sell at a higher rate than normal.
These sort of things only seems to help the economy as lawyers, opinion writers, and Govt. officials working OT, and even Matt Drudge earn a bit more money in the next few weeks and pump it back into the economy. If anything you benefit from it because it puts a very very very small dent in the economic recession because people will spend money buying into all the coverage that scandals like this generate.
It's only a matter of time before Kristen graces the pages of some nudie zine and generates even more money.
How sad, trying to divert attention from the sleazy Democrat to Dr Laura.
Posted by: pbj on March 13, 2008 09:00 AMTouche'. =)
But apparently perjury is illegal.
Posted by: pbj on March 13, 2008 09:06 AMNo, but perjuring yourself in testimony to congress is....hence, the public backlash,the impeachment and finally, the disbarrment. You gotta love the evershifting goal posts in the delusional mindset of liberal thought.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 13, 2008 09:07 AMYes, but that usually comes from a trail situation resulting from the act and not from the act itself. As opposed to Spitzer who was caught in an illegal act.
Apples and Oranges.
Can you point out the law that was broken? I'm afraid I am unfamiliar with it. It looks like Bill Clinton was charged with Obstruction of Justice and Perjury neither of these crimes are sexual in nature (as opposed to say Prostitution).
So, the original point (Saltherring @ 4) was that it was too bad he didn't simply do like Spitzer and resign promptly. Saltherring is correct. Unless you want to argue that the president should be allowed to commit felonies with impunity -- do you? To be intellectually consistent, you would have to agree that Dubya also should be allowed to commit felonies, and we shouldn't raise a fuss about it. Do you want to make that argument?
And not supporting Packwood, but he quit over what NOW and 29 women said..... No proof was ever brought fwd. It was all based on here-say.
Funny how the dem's always forget that part, but it was OK when BC was doing it.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 13, 2008 09:20 AMI think FREE SPEECH still holds. Well maybe not to the dem party.
By the way Duffie. If a man will cheat on his wife, what makes you think he won't LIE to you too!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 13, 2008 09:26 AMNothing except say a tell-all diary written by Packwood himself. I mean it's not like he tried to change the entries or anything after the issue was brought to the public's attention...that might imply guilt. Oh wait, he did that. Doh!
and using the dems way with words (his diary) We know how men can over state things!
Nice try
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 13, 2008 09:35 AMand using the dems way with words (his diary) We know how men can over state things!
Nice try
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 13, 2008 09:36 AMMy opinion anyway. :)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
and so is her's.... unless the dem's have their way and pass the fairness bill. If you dare to call it that.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 13, 2008 09:40 AMMaybe, but my point was the original act that he committed was not illegal, what he did in the aftermath was. What Spitzer did violated both state and federal law. My point is there is a difference, and just to point out (and I am not defending his actions in any way) President Clinton was eventually acquitted on all charges.
Dubya also should be allowed to commit felonies, and we shouldn't raise a fuss about it.
Well since Dubya has not been legally charged with any felonies it would be awfully hard to make that comparison now wouldn't it. (BTW, DUI is a felony in Canada, but since Dubya committed the act on American soil it would be quite a stretch to prosecute him)
It happened HOW long ago. was he working for the GOV?
Man talk about a huge reach.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 13, 2008 09:52 AMOK. I see your Bob Packwood and raise you a Brock Adams and a Mike Lowry.
Care to continue? You won't win.
Posted by: jimg on March 13, 2008 10:16 AMHmmm, yeah it's a stretch. I'm afraid destroying the Constitution does not count as a felony these days. I mean who needs those pesky 1st and 4th Amendments anyway. Good thing President Bush is not touching the 2nd Amendment or we'd have a real outrage on our hands.
How about we just agree that sex scandals affect both sides of the aisle. I'd hardly want to bring up Mark Foley and Newt Gingrich.
1. Clinton had sex with an intern who is in a subordinate employment relationship to him as Commander in Chief and Chief law enforcement officer. His oath is to uphold the Consitution, remember? It doesn't matter the gender of the intern, they are in a subordinate role and there is an absolute power inbalance. He is wrong for this activity on the following reasons:
a. workplace harassment, even though the deluded girl was ready and willing, I'm with Nancy Reagan, just say no. Actually, if he wanted a misstress and the European elite is great on this multiple relationship thing, go the Sarkozy route and get someone who has been around and closer to his age.
b. The location of the event, in the Oval Office. I'm with Reagan on this one, have a little repect for the history and the surroundings of the Oval Office. At least go to the Mayflower Hotel or a borrowed townhouse in Georgetown for the meetings. People there know what's what and can keep their mouths shut. Remember it was Spitzer's bank that busted him, not the Mayflower Hotel.
c. HE LIED UNDER OATH, that is what gets him.
2. I actually have a bit more respect for Spitzer as he was paying for a "professional." But, prostitution is not a victimless crime, many of those boys and girls who enter the "game" come from broken and abusive homes. Many have substance abuse and emotional issues and this lifestyle does nothing to help them become healthy. Regrading a $3,000 apt in Manhattan, well that is the going rate for Manhattan and the middle class digs.
3. Where Spitzer is a hypocrite is knowing the money transfer rules and thinking he could evade them for one thing. Second, the generally low esteem he seems to hold all women as evidenced by his actions toward this particular women, his wife and daughters and the women's organizations from which he solicited support. I suspect that underneath the bluster is a man who has little regard for human life, period.
Finally, are there any standards the public expects from those in power or are we simply a Paris Hilton world and we simply don't want people to be "caught" and rub our noses in it?
Posted by: WVH on March 13, 2008 10:42 AMTo see a rag as far left as the P-I exploit this liberal meltdown in order to sell papers is delicious.
Well, WVH let me answer that by quoting a now infamous orator from South Carolina:
"I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some people out there in our nation don't have maps and, uh, I believe that our, uh, education like such as in, uh, South Africa and, uh, the Iraq and everywhere like such as, and I believe that they should, uh, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, should help South Africa and should help Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future for our children."
'nuff said? :)
Posted by: Duffman on March 13, 2008 11:05 AMYou get the PI? Aren't you on here rallying about how bad the elite leftist MSM is? By subscribing to the PI doesn't that mean you contribute to the problem of the leftist media by paying their salaries? Talk about being a hypocrite.
1. I do think they would care what some one did to their daughters and it is an extension of your it is all about me theory. People in their lives are possessions and one does not want their possessions sullied or destroyed. Both men, in my opinion, tend to objectify people and women in particular.
2. I agree with you that Mrs. Spitzer probably if not knew, could have easily found out, but chose the don't ask and he won't tell route.
Tolstoy's book Anna Karenina, which begins:
Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.
I believe that the Spitzers and Clintons are each unhappy in their own way.
Are we pinning the bitterness meter here?
I read the paper for the sports section, and I admit I often enjoy Horsey's cartoons. Robert Jamieson is a fair minded columnist. I ignore the stuff like today's feature in the "Life and Arts" section on the "Diaries of Rachel Corrie".
I'm not going to be closed minded like liberals that "refuse to watch Fox News".
I find Fox News to be a little eager to drop words like "al-Qaeda" and/or "terrorism" into their coverage of unrelated incidents like a power brownout in Florida or ricin in a Las Vegas Hotel. It's kind of like watching the ultimate terrorist conspiracy theory unfold and then they move onto the next story like nothing happened.
Apples and Oranges."
Both were Democrats, the party that claims to for women's rights and against the subjugation of women through prostitution.
Apples and Apples.
Posted by: pbj on March 13, 2008 11:50 AMO-yeah, that's like FOX alright.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 13, 2008 11:52 AMApparently you think that gay based hypocrisy is funny as opposed to heto base hypocrisy. Are you some kind of homo phobe? Because that would be pretty hypocritical, being a member of a party that claims to be for gay rights, yet making fun of a confused homosexual.
Posted by: pbj on March 13, 2008 11:55 AMLet's not forget that as AG. Mr Spitzer sent people to jail for the same reason! and from what I've heard he helped to pass stronger laws on this samething.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 13, 2008 11:58 AMHow about the fact that the dem's claim to be the party of equal-rights. Well look at Obama & Hillary right now. It's black against white. Women against men. Sit back and break out the popcorn.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 13, 2008 12:04 PMYou really think Drudge will sink that far in 20 years as to be comparable to those sleazy sites?
Posted by: pbj on March 13, 2008 12:42 PMIn case you haven't heard. Obama pastor is on the ABC news and some of his sermons are going to be a huge mess for Obama. Talk about a racist (pastor)
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 13, 2008 12:46 PMhttp://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:HB7JGLZpJaEJ:www.daylife.com/photo/07Krecr9Kfa9o+%22spitzer+(r)%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080312/img/ppl-us-politics-newyork-gov-1-4e48f9b2ad981.html
Posted by: JDH on March 13, 2008 12:50 PMShould we really be surprised. (-:
It's the MSN.
They talk about Foley for a month, yet wish to leave Spitzer right now. No can't talk about that, no let's move on and HEAL. Yeah right!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 13, 2008 12:54 PMand the rest is here:
http://www.anncoulter.com/
Posted by: JDH on March 13, 2008 12:56 PMPresident Clinton purjured himself in grand jury proceedings in a sexual assault case brought forward by Paula Jones. His actions with Monica Lewinsky were used by the plantiff's counsel to show a pattern of abuse and activity by the defendant.
His lying affected the conclusion of the grand jury and the judge in the case, because his SWORN TESTIMONY did not support the position put forward by Ms. Jones' lawyers; of course, we all now know that President Clinton LIED to that grand jury, and if he had told the truth Ms. Jones may have had her day in court.
It wasn't "just sex". It was lying to cover himself in the preliminary motions of Federal case regarding sexual assault. He lied not about sex, but to avoid being charged with a crime of sexual assault. Which if anything makes his lie - to me - that much more odious.
Clinton's lies were to obstruct justice; it wasn't about sex at all.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 13, 2008 01:10 PMRacism:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
Looks like that might fit here:
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Still, to say that his pastor is hating or intolerant towards white people would be wrong. From what I've seen (which isn't much) it looks like he's saying that white people oppress black people. He's tolerant of them, he's just not a fan of their polices towards black individuals. To call this "Racism" is really a stretch.
Don't forget that McCain has his own happy preacher endorsement from a guy who is more than happy to go off and associate Catholicism with Nazi's.
Seems like they both have religious issues they need to deal with. Meanwhile it's going to be a long unhappy trip to November for both parties.
Cato
You may wish to watch some of the many Videos before you say more dumb stuff. (Yeah i know it's hard for you)
No use telling Cato the truth. He cares not to hear or read the truth.
(typical Lib)
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 13, 2008 01:28 PMThanks, but I don't really care to watch any more of the videos since neither of them are my pastor or speak to/for me. Personally, I could care less if they hate Whitey/Catholics. That's their choice and really does not have any effect any on the issues facing the nation (which is what I thought this election was about).
I think Obama should issue a similar statement and both churches should loose their non-profit status. That way we can get back to talking about the issues.
Figures you would try to run from this.
If you belong to a church for 20+ years and your pastor speaks about hate for white people and hate for this nation. It matters.
Opra went to this church and left, I wonder why.
Typical lib answer. Just like when you fools said GW had no gravitas. Yeah like that really was a big deal.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 13, 2008 01:50 PMDo you see me defending Clinton at all here? All I'm saying and have been saying is that BJ's in the Oval Office are not a crime. Gov. Spitzer committed an actual crime that broke national and state laws. Bill Clinton perjuring himself AFTER THE FACT is a different type of crime that can only occur in courtroom.
Apparently you think that gay based hypocrisy is funny as opposed to heto base hypocrisy
Yup, sure do since Gay people are a big taboo issue in the GOP. I find it exceptionally funny to see the biggest anti-gay crusaders turn out to be big closet homos. Hetro hypocrisy is just so normal these days, it's almost cliche.
Remember this Pastor is Obama hero.
Doesn't he work on Obama's campain?
Makes you wonder.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 13, 2008 01:56 PMWell actually you are. I am not saying Clinton and Spitzer are equivalent (as far as we currently know about Clinton's past) but that doesn't excuse Clinton's presuring a subordinate to perform fellacio on him. In. The. People's. House.
Just because Bill Clinton sexually harassed his subordinates and William Ayers bombed in the 60's and never got caught (though he has publicly admitted to the bomibgs even once saying he regretted not planting enough bombs) it doesn't excuse them.
Posted by: pbj on March 13, 2008 02:04 PMSound hypocritical to me. I thought liberals were supposed to be compassionate and caring. You sound homophobic. That's hypocritical.
Posted by: pbj on March 13, 2008 02:07 PMAnd prostituion is not taboo within the Democrat Party? So you are saying if we asked Hillary or Christine, they'd asy "Fine with me! I hope Elliot got his money's worth?"
Posted by: pbj on March 13, 2008 02:23 PMI don't see the Dem's going on big morality crusades. So yes, i would say it's less of a taboo among Democrats since it's quite common among both parties.
You sound homophobic. That's hypocritical.
I sound homophobic or I am homophobic? Which is it? It's hard to be hypocritical unless I was actually homophobic. Since you can't prove it one way or the other you are just making a fool out of yourself.
Remember this Pastor is Obama hero.
Doesn't he work on Obama's campaign?
For some people Kennith Lay was their hero, didn't he contribute lots of money to the Bush Campaign? For other people it was Ted Haggard, Bill Clinton, or Gov. Spitzer.
Individuals are flawed and hero worship is overrated.
Apparently you haven't been reading about Elliot Spitzer and his crusade againt prostituion. He busted several rings. Probably he had inside information.
Democrats go on morality crusades to save every creature on the planet, except baby humans. I guess advocating fro the murder of baby humans is their version of morality.
Every time they want to squeeze money from the public they always say "It's for the children."
Posted by: pbj on March 13, 2008 03:23 PMIf I were a Republican, I'd be concentrating on exploiting the rift between the Obama and Clinton factions of the Democratic Party. It's bad enough that you guys are going to nominate Bob Dole II (a.k.a. John McCain) without wasting your time talking about Eliot Spitzer. He's done, and we won't be hearing from or about him again after St. Patty's Day. Turn your attention to things that matter.
Cheers!
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on March 13, 2008 03:40 PMSo by doing the job the people of NY elected him to do he's a hypocrite? That's quite a bit different than rallying against homosexuality as a sin. Those laws were in place, he wasn't trying to pass new laws (at least not yet).
I guess advocating fro the murder of baby humans is their version of morality.
Oh look, it's the classic "I can't think of anything smart to say so I'll just bring up abortion" argument.
Every time they want to squeeze money from the public they always say "It's for the children."
Uh huh, you keep telling yourself that. Next thing you'll be telling me is the homosexuals are a bigger threat to America than al-Qaeda. Homosexuals make everyone Gay, just look at Project Runway. =)
It should.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 13, 2008 04:12 PMWe've all seen the conservative "Uncle Sam" reader board on I-5 south of Chehalis. I recall driving by in the mid-70's when the sign stated:
"HOMOS ARE QUEER, NOT GAY"
I and my passengers were still laughing 5 miles down the road. And no, I am not "homophobic". That word denotes fear, and I am not afraid, just repulsed by their behavior and their (and their advocates') agenda.
Posted by: Saltherring on March 13, 2008 04:20 PMI'm not uncomfortable at all. I just know that:
1) It's stupid to get into an argument about abortion on a conservative message board.
2) I'm not going to spend the rest of the month defending abortion while being attacked by 15 different people on here.
3)If I support legal abortion that's my choice.
4) Abortion has nothing to do with Elliot Spitzer (unless he got her pregnant), prostitution, or hypocrisy.
5) I'm especially not getting sucked into an abortion argument because PBJ ran out of talking points.
...and yet that's supposed to be equivalent to Obama's membership in a church, the pastor of which espouses views during his sermons, and in his church's official positions, that average clear thinking Americans would find to be racist. You know, the sermons that, if Obama is a member of the church, I would expect him to be sitting and listening to on occasion.
If the pastor of your church uses his sermons to put forth views that stand in opposition to your beliefs and morals, you switch churches. It's as simple as that.
Posted by: Rick on March 13, 2008 05:02 PMThat sounds like me. =)
Keep abortion safe and legal folks. We don't want our aborted kids picking lettuce in Yuma for $50/hr for the whole season.
They aren't, lying about them is.
Posted by: Sam Adams on March 13, 2008 05:16 PMMaybe he respects the pastor as an individual rather than the racist everyone makes him out to be. I mean he only gave 20k to the church, surely there must be something good in it.
Oprah seems to like it and she hangs out with whitey all the time. =P
It seems as though Sen. Obama has distanced himself from the minister. I'm waiting for McCain to do the same. =)
"So by doing the job the people of NY elected him to do he's a hypocrite? "
Really? He was doing his job??? Bwa ha ha ha. That is a good one. Is that the story Christine uh er I mean Kristen is saying about Client #9??
Funny, for some reason I don't recall anywhere in the duties of Governer where banging a hooker for 10 years, transporting a human being accross state lines for the purpose of prostitution and laundering money is listed. Can you please provide me a link?
"That's quite a bit different than rallying against homosexuality as a sin. Those laws were in place, he wasn't trying to pass new laws (at least not yet)."
He didn't have any time to try to pass any new laws, he was too busy breaking the old ones (SEE the MANN ACT for starters). Perhaps is the bible thumpers had all gone to the Emperor's Club you'd approve of them? Unlike Democrats "aka" man of the peoplw (well the millionaire people), most bible thumpers cannot afford the $5500/hr for a hooker like Christines friend Elliot Spitzer.
"Oh look, it's the classic "I can't think of anything smart to say so I'll just bring up abortion" argument."
Oh look, it is the classic "I can't defend the indefensible, so I will make a snarky remark and retreat."
"Uh huh, you keep telling yourself that. Next thing you'll be telling me is the homosexuals are a bigger threat to America than al-Qaeda. Homosexuals make everyone Gay, just look at Project Runway. =)"
Oh look, another old rehashed talking point because you couldn't answer the point.
Why? Because the moderators won't stifle your opponent for you?
"2) I'm not going to spend the rest of the month defending abortion while being attacked by 15 different people on here."
Perhaps you wish they were all aborted too? As Reagan famously said "All the people I know that are for abortion have already been born."
"If I support legal abortion that's my choice."
In Nazi Germany it was legal to kill Jews too. You would have fit in real well there.
"4) Abortion has nothing to do with Elliot Spitzer (unless he got her pregnant), prostitution, or hypocrisy."
Actually, prostitutes are some of the largest recipients of abortion for obvious reasons. It is quite likely that over the course of 10 years, with a Governor who preferred the "natural feel" of condomless intercourse, there are either ofspring in his spit-zing image or murdered fetuses in a trash dump somewhere.
"5) I'm especially not getting sucked into an abortion argument because PBJ ran out of talking points."
You are the one that started talking about morality crusades. And now that I called you out, you are running away.
Posted by: pbj on March 13, 2008 05:56 PMSo by doing the job the people of NY elected him to do he's a hypocrite?
Yes, because at the same time he was doing that job, he was also BREAKING THE VERY LAWS HE WAS UPHOLDING.
Did you consider Rush Limbaugh a hypocrite when he was charged with illegal possession of prescription drugs? If so, how is this different?
Arrest and convict johns and hookers and pimps during the day, be a john, use hookers, and pay pimps at night. That's the definition of hypocrite. The fact you can't see it shows you only see the world through Democrat-colored glasses.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 13, 2008 06:16 PMYou betcha. In fact he was so good at it the fine people of New York State elected him Governor. How about that. If the fact that the American public didn't know he was a hypocrite for seven years makes him an even better hypocrite. =)
Why? Because the moderators won't stifle your opponent for you?
What moderators? Even if I defended abortion I'm not going to change your mind. Why rehash something that people on both sides of the issue who are much smarter than myself have been shouting about about since abortion became legal.
Perhaps you wish they were all aborted too?
Cute, but if they were aborted we wouldn't be having this argument in the first place. If you want to change history and abort a bunch of anonymous bulletin board posters, be my guest.
Actually, prostitutes are some of the largest recipients of abortion for obvious reasons.
Is Kristien pregnant? Was she at any point carrying Spitzer's bastard love child? If the answer is No to both of these questions then abortion is irrelevant to the discussion.
And now that I called you out, you are running away.
Running away from defending abortion? Forgive me for not being interested in recreating Custers Last Stand on the Sound Politics bulletin board. I'm sure we all have better things to do.
I want to discuss hypocrite jerk CATHOLIC politicians who exploit and milk their Catholicism for votes while perpetuating and benefiting FROM abortion... Gregoire, Murray, Cantwell, all Kennedys, Kerry, Pelosi, Leahy and yes even Snowe and Collins...
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on March 13, 2008 06:25 PMHasn't anyone wondered WHY, if abortion is a precious right bestowed by Roe v. Wade, it should be RARE?
Should our equally precious right to free speech be rare? Should our right to pursue happiness be rare?
Do they realize what morons they make themselves to be?
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on March 13, 2008 06:31 PMSaddam and Kim Jun Il were also reelected by great margins.
"If the fact that the American public didn't know he was a hypocrite for seven years makes him an even better hypocrite. =)"
10 years actually. And No, that makes him an even better Democrat.
Oh please stop playing dumb. You know very well that over on equine anal blog they regularly delete posts. They have to censor anyone who disagrees with them, especially if they back it up with sources and facts.
That is why liberals want a "fairness doctrine", so they can enforce their ideology and stifle debate. You get a consideration here that is rarely returned in the liberal blogs. You get unfettered posting because we can defeat you on the battlefield of ideas and not via the blog administator account.
Posted by: pbj on March 13, 2008 06:54 PMAren't all you anti-war types always telling anyone who is for the war to go join up and practice what they preach?
Why don't you go get aborted. It is not too late for you to stay true to your principles.
Posted by: pbj on March 13, 2008 06:56 PMWhat about the other prostitutes he slept with? Do you know for a fact she never had an abortion or never was pregnant?
I don't know that is did or was, but I do know that they had unprotected sex. And if my understanding of the birds and bees still holds, that is how babies are made. Or did you think the great white liberal brought them by on Earth Day?
Posted by: pbj on March 13, 2008 07:00 PMDo you not think those children KNOW they are different than those from families with a married mommy and daddy? Even children of divorced mommy and daddy KNOW who their daddy is; ditto those with a mommy or daddy that passed away.
My
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on March 13, 2008 09:40 PMI really have no clue what your talking about. I rarely see any moderation here except when we drift to far off topic they close the thread. Since a long drawn out abortion argument would annoy the heck of the regular posters here and bore me to tears I am not going to go there.
Well hello Ragnar, since you are obviously opposed to Obama's pastor I wonder how do you feel about John Hagee's comments on the Catholic Church being a "Great Whore"? You being a highly religious individual do you agree/disagree?
Just because a child is born to parents who are not married to each other, you propose what:
1. Calling the child an illegitmate or bastard to the child's face?
2. If child is a decent human being, you propose to shun or exclude the child?
How do you propose to treat the children that result from such liasons? You are correct language is important. I suppose we could go back to the days of Charles Dickens and limit a person's potential simply on the basis of parentage or social class? Oh, wait, we could add color and religion as a qualifer for who is treated fairly.
We, as a society, no matter how the child arrived on this earth would do better to focus on making sure each child has a good basic education and is in a sitaution where they are not abused.
Labeling the child is counterproductive.
As far a shunning: yes the parents that make a choice to illegitimately sire a child SHOULD be shunned. Children NEED 2 parents and those that willingly choose not to give them one deserve scorn from society. Why should I, or anyone pretend that it's admirable or even acceptable when in fact it is NOT.
Sex is a dangerous game these days, and sadly, the least scorned result of sex is popping out a baby.
We as a society need to again place value on intact families and basic morality. Our girls are wantonly whoring themselves "hooking up" or having oral sex to "keep their virginity". It is absolutely disgusting that we allow them to delude themselves. We are saying we accept inappropriate sex and child birth when we say nothing about giving high schools day care.
cato-the-closet-racist, I'd like to know how you "obviously" got any idea about what I think about Obama's pastor... of course tapes of the creep spewing his hate America hate whitey rhetoric has been all over talk shows today. Good! Expose him, Obama and his ungrateful wife for exactly what they are. Regarding whomever it is that has or has not endorsed McCain, I simply do not know him nor do I care. If he has called the Catholic Church names, he won't be the first nor the last, nor will he affect my faith and Catholicism. That you can't distinguish the difference says volumes. But, of course, you have to make the "token" jab. Go for it, dude. We know what you're about... and have the links to prove it.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on March 14, 2008 12:12 AMYou are preaching to the choir on the issue of adult reponsibility for not bringing children into this world that you are not willing to be responsible for and parent. I probably would go further than you because I feel that males who randomly impregnate multiple women should be sterilized and women that continue to have multiple children that are abused by them and their "fiancees" should have their tubes tied. If I am not on every civil liberties hit list, I now am. I want every child to have a good quality of life and a good basic education.
Where we differ is what to do we do with the child that exists in the here and now. Neither of us supports abortion, I believe we both support adoption. I just don't see that labeling any child is productive. It is not their fault how they got here.
Posted by: WVH on March 14, 2008 12:45 AMWell you haven't a clue about much do you?
" Since a long drawn out abortion argument would annoy the heck of the regular posters here and bore me to tears I am not going to go there."
So do the rest of your long drawn out arguments. Again, just admit you cannot defend the indefensible.
I, too, get frustrated with society's love of the celebrity and their failures as humans. However, at the gym, I am the first to pick up the trash disguised as a magazine- People, Star, Enquirer- to read what is shaking out. I must admit that as part of the workout, I could never concentrate on anything that required thinking.
I think it started bad with the OJ trial and went down from there.
In this day and age, it is almost silly to have a 'target' in these war zones. That is why I never cared whether the Gorebot's kids, Clinton kid, the Bush or Cheney girls, or any other 'target' went in the service.
Posted by: swatter on March 14, 2008 07:10 AMWe've had this discussion on a prior topic where you called him a racist. That's how I know. Given the fact that Sen. Obama is associated with him and he's a Democrat that just makes it all the more likely.
Regarding whomever it is that has or has not endorsed McCain, I simply do not know him nor do I care. If he has called the Catholic Church names, he won't be the first nor the last, nor will he affect my faith and Catholicism.
I see, so it's OK to be a bigot, as lot as your a bigot about a religion. So say he starts lashing out at Jews instead of Catholics. Does that make a difference? The fact that you just brush bigotry aside because he supports a republican vs a Democrat speaks volumes.
If you're pro-choice, at least have the curtesy to pay for your choice.
Sounds like a fine plan to me, I have no problems with that.
Well you haven't a clue about much do you?
From the looks of our other thread where you equate a radical hippie movement in the 60's to al-Qaeda it's you who clearly needs a clue.
Again, just admit you cannot defend the indefensible.
Haha, so if the Govt. said Males can no longer get vasectomies because they kill potential children you'd be OK with that? Good to know.
You claimed in the other thread that the Weathermen were just some kids blowing up statues. Please tell that to the wives and kids of the two dead cops and the security guard.
"Haha, so if the Govt. said Males can no longer get vasectomies because they kill potential children you'd be OK with that? Good to know."
WTF? What a colossal nonsequitor. I guess you have to think of SOMETHING to put forht to defend the indefensible.
Lets look at the logic here:
Let's say I happen to be friends with a CEO of a Dodge who used cheap Chinese tires on mini-van's that destroyed hundreds of families when the tires blew out.
I am now a reprehensible person who is somehow responsible for the deaths and the consequences of my friends actions because he made choose to use cheap tires on his mini-vans. Even though I had absolutely nothing to do with the tires/mini-vans/company I am a guilty by association.
Again, when I use the same logic in a different scenario it looks and sounds absolutely ridiculous.
I guess you have to think of SOMETHING to put forth to defend the indefensible.
Blah blah blah, I'm still not going to get in an abortion debate with you. I support abortion, you do not. Move on already.
As a veteran, I will never vote for any congressman or senator who refuses to wear an American Flag on their lapel
Hey PBJ, are you wearing an American Flag lapel pin right now? Does that apply to all Americans or just elected officials in wartime?
I mean without that tiny piece of metal that has been crafted into the shape of an American Flag (in China no less) placed on your lapel I would not be able to tell if you were a REAL American. All your years of service to this country will be in vain if you don't wear the flag shaped lapel pin showing your pride as an American.
and has a wife ashamed of America
As someone who's against prescription drug abuse in this country I'm not going to vote for a congressman/senator whose wife is who stole prescription pain killers. That would be like appointing Rush Limbaugh to be head of the DEA.
"Hey PBJ, are you wearing an American Flag lapel pin right now? Does that apply to all Americans or just elected officials in wartime?"
I am. And yes I do expect elected officials to wear the flag pin if it is customary (which it is with senators). I absolutely do not expect them to denounce the American Flag by refusing to wear as a protest to "jingoism".
"I mean without that tiny piece of metal that has been crafted into the shape of an American Flag (in China no less) placed on your lapel I would not be able to tell if you were a REAL American. All your years of service to this country will be in vain if you don't wear the flag shaped lapel pin showing your pride as an American."
Just looked and mine is not made in China. It says MADE IN THE USA on the back.
Well let's see. Obama never served i9n teh military, has Anti-American friends, wife says she is ashamed of the nation. I'd say that is pretty poor compared to a man who DID put his life ont he line for our nation, seved with honor, and bothers to make the simplest gesture of respect for those that dies for our freedoms.
Obama cannot be bothered. He is too busy courting 60's terorrist who killed two cops and a sceurity gurad.
Was it made for you by Americans? Was the metal used in that pin mined in the USA by hard working Americans? You know it's very likely that it could have been made by migrant workers in a factory in Texas with imported metal from Russia and still say Made in America on the back.
I'm glad you are happy with your fun little pin that shows the world you're a REAL American.
Well let's see. Obama never served in the military. Has Anti-American friends, wife says she is ashamed of the nation.
Taken out of context McCain is a war hero who wants to stay in Iraq for 100 more years.
I'd say that is pretty poor compared to a man who DID put his life on the line for our nation
I would agree, but if that's your only criteria for electing a President then your an idiot.
He is too busy courting 60's terrorist who killed two cops and a security guard.
From you:
"Gilbert and Kathy Boudin, also former members of the Weather Underground, were jailed in 1981 for their roles in a Brinks truck hold-up that resulted in the deaths of two police officers and a security guard."
I don't see William Ayers name in that report you posted. Whom did he kill again? Oh yeah, nobody. Once again your argument looks ridiculous when you the truth comes out.
The truth is I actually like McCain (I even caucused for him in 2000), it's his supporters who put up moronic arguments that don't hold water that turn me off.
How ignorant can you be. Somone such as yourself who has had freedom handed to you without having to share the burden of securing that freedom has no clue what the flag stands for. It has to honor, duty and country. Three things I am sure are alien to you.
Do you even work? I bet you are on welfare.
" don't see William Ayers name in that report you posted. Whom did he kill again? Oh yeah, nobody. Once again your argument looks ridiculous when you the truth comes out."
Is William Ayers one of the Weathermen? HINT: YES
Did William Ayers plant bombs? HINT: YES
Did William Ayers say he regretted he didn't plant more bombs? HINT: YES
Did you dismiss the Weatherman as some kids playing pranks? HINT: YES
"The truth is I actually like McCain (I even caucused for him in 2000), it's his supporters who put up moronic arguments that don't hold water that turn me off."
First off, I am NOT a McCain supporter. I am not voting for either of them. All thress will, without a doubt be a disaster in one form or another. So that dog don't hunt traitor.
And stop trying to pass off your interference in the Republican primaries as some sort of honorable thing. You are no Republican. You were a cross over voter interfering with the party's selection process.
Dear PBJ,
You would be giving me some excuse about how Romney was great businessman who severed his country in a time of need by taking over the Olympic Committee and steering it to profitability if Romney had won the nomination.
Romney never served, his father never served, his sons seem too busy with their own lives to serve. Yet this man could have been the GOP nominee and you would be giving me some moronic argument about he would qualified to run the military than Obama.
Oh yeah, watch this video...Mitt Romney is not wearing an American Flag lapel pin!! OMFG!!!
He must not be qualified to be President because he's not a REAL American who wears an American Flag lapel pin supporting his country in a time of war.
Mitt Romney, traitor to his country for not wearing an American Flag lapel pin on the campaign trail.
In a fiery sermon in April 2003, Wright said: "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America.
"No! No No!
"God damn America ... for killing innocent people.
"God damn America for threatening citizens as less than humans.
"God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme."
Posted by: pbj on March 14, 2008 03:29 PMI NEVER said any such thing. PROVE IT traitor. Once agian, you'll throw out any old lie.
Got any more straw men?
Posted by: pbj on March 14, 2008 03:32 PMNone of those people you or anyone can mention has refused to wear the Flag Pin EVER. They may not wear it 24 hrs a day, but there is a far cry from occasionally wearing it and refusing to ever wear it.
Only you are too damn stupid to figure that out.
So go ahead and throw out more straw men.
Posted by: pbj on March 14, 2008 03:36 PMI do work, quite hard and pay my taxes, and enjoy the fine freedoms we all share. Doesn't mean I'm have to wear a stupid lapel pin to show off how proud I am that I'm living in America.
You forgot:
Did William Ayers bombs hurt anyone? HINT: NO
Did William Ayers stealing files from the FBI hurt anyone? HINT: NO
Did the Weatherman take special care as to not hurt anyone? HINT: YES
Is PBJ personally responsible if a one of his/her friends robs a bank and kills someone in the process? HINT: NO
I am not voting for either of them
I though REAL American's voted, it's one of those freedoms you defended right?
You are no Republican
That's right, I'm an independent. I vote on the issues I care about and don't follow some moronic party boundary line.
I lean left on some issues but I also lean right on other issues. Some issues take higher priority over others and if I agree one candidate's stance on the issues I feel strongly about I will vote for them over their opponent.
You were a cross over voter interfering with the party's selection process
1) You don't know me.
2) You somehow know what my intentions are.
3) I never got the chance to vote for McCain in the general because he dropped out the day after I caucused for him.
You never said such a thing, but based on your rigorous defense of McCain (a man who you won't vote for) and the GOP talking points I made an educated guess.
Since I'm wrong I guess you would not defend Romney if he was the GOP candidate? Is it because you hate Mormons? is it because he doesn't wear the American Flag lapel pin?
They may not wear it 24 hrs a day, but there is a far cry from occasionally wearing it and refusing to ever wear it.
How do you know Romney has not refused to wear it? I'm having a hard time finding a photo of him wearing one. I thought we were at war, lapel pins are important!!
Romeny must be a traitor to the country because he's not wearing the lapel pin!!
Posted by: cato on March 14, 2008 03:59 PMWell ther eis your problem. You are not educated, so stop guessing and perhaps do your homework.
"Since I'm wrong I guess you would not defend Romney if he was the GOP candidate? Is it because you hate Mormons? is it because he doesn't wear the American Flag lapel pin?"
There you go again with those straw men. Keep setting em up and kncking em down. You must make your parole office quite proud.
Do you even have a job??
Posted by: pbj on March 14, 2008 04:08 PMGot any more Straw men I can incinerate liar?
Posted by: pbj on March 14, 2008 04:11 PMSo Mitt Romney hasn't worn a lapel pin since 2005 when this photo was taken? Man, that a**hole!!
stop guessing and perhaps do your homework.
On what? You? Pass.
If you were a US Senator and refused to wear one, it wuld be quite telling. And if you wanted my vote, dissing the flag would guarantee you wouldn't get it.
You forgot:
Did William Ayers bombs hurt anyone? HINT: NO
Did William Ayers stealing files from the FBI hurt anyone? HINT: NO
Did the Weatherman take special care as to not hurt anyone? HINT: YES
Is PBJ personally responsible if a one of his/her friends robs a bank and kills someone in the process? HINT: NO
Wow, Ayers is the "Sensitive" terrorist. Let's put him up for a Nobel Prize!
So no KKK members, even if TO THIS DAY they are racists , are guilty at all for any of the actions their fellow KKK members did? Well, after all you honor old Grand Kleagke himself, Democrat Robert KKK Byrd.
Ayers is an unrepentant bomber. He should be in Guantanimo, not at a university.
>"I though REAL American's voted, it's one of those freedoms you defended right?"
When the choice is disaster or disaster, I choose neither.
"That's right, I'm an independent. I vote on the issues I care about and don't follow some moronic party boundary line.
I lean left on some issues but I also lean right on other issues. Some issues take higher priority over others and if I agree one candidate's stance on the issues I feel strongly about I will vote for them over their opponent."
That all sounds nice, but your posts on SP reveal you to be otherwise. Next you will tell me you are going to vote for McCain right? Right?
No? That is because you wanted to throw a monkey wrench in the Republican primary. Just like all the fuax "undecided Republicans" in the CNN Anderson Cooper hosted Republican Debate where they all turned out to actually be Democrats.
Depends on who he's running against now doesn't it. I will likely make my decision after the party conventions since both candidates/platforms/VP's will have been revealed.
So no KKK members, even if TO THIS DAY they are racists
I didn't say that, I said it's not a crime to be a racist, it's just plain ignorance. Unless you are found guilty by a jury of your peers you are still innocent.
Just like all the fuax "undecided Republicans"
Like those darn Reagan Democrats who didn't stick with the party and voted for Clinton over Bush Sr. Those people should stay home like you cause they're not REAL Americans who wear American Flag lapel pains and feel pride in their country/candidate. They're faux Americans!! =P
No, like those Democrat plants at the CNN Anderson Cooper Republican debate that they took questions from.
Not everyone feels, like you, that they should burn a flag, piss on it, spit on veterans returning form war and denounce this country to prove to the liberatti that they are "true patriots".
Posted by: pbj on March 16, 2008 01:57 PMYou are as phoney as the faux Republicans CNN had on its YOUTUBE Republicans debate. I can easily say, without a doubt, you would NEVER vote for McCain.
You may be too young to have gotten in with the 60's glory days of protesting Vietnam, but hey when McCain comes to town, you can hock him a loogee just for old time's sake since you weren't around in the 60's year you idolize so much.
Posted by: pbj on March 16, 2008 02:02 PMYou mean like SP's own Pudge who's lyrical stylings graced the TV sets of America during that debate? I think he might be offended if you called him a Democrat plant.
Or maybe you are saying that Republicans have problems answering questions from Democrats. Are Republicans scared of tough questions from the other side of the aisle?
I can easily say, without a doubt, you would NEVER vote for McCain.
Works for me, you can go vote for your buddies in Constitution party. I hear they need to get 5% of the popular vote to qualify for matching funds.
you can hock him a loogee just for old time's sake since you weren't around in the 60's year you idolize so much.
1) Can you name one person who got spat on when they came home from Vietnam? It's an urban legend.
2) I never claimed to idolize the 60's, though they had some great music.
No you lying sack of dung! I mean like the Democrats who lied, like you Cato, and called in falsely representing themselves as Undecided Republicans. Pudge used his real name and didn't have to conceal anything.
"Or maybe you are saying that Republicans have problems answering questions from Democrats. Are Republicans scared of tough questions from the other side of the aisle?"
I am saying that Democrat are lower than a Denebian Slime Devils. They LIED in order to pose their questions. Had they identified themselves AS DEMOCRAT and NOT LIED/CATO'D, it wouldn't be an issue. The chicken crap Democrat candidates were too cowardly to show up for a Fox Sponsored Democrat debate. How the hell can we expect them to stand up to Al Qaeda when they are too chickewn S H*T to stand up to Fox News???
"1) Can you name one person who got spat on when they came home from Vietnam? It's an urban legend."
BS! It is NOT urband legend. If you look at Lembke who teis to put forth this is a myth, he is an anti-war activist seting out to rewrite history to portray the spitting traitors in a favorable light.
http://www.slate.com/id/2159099
"A June 9, 1971, op-ed (whose provenance I cannot vouch for) states that veteran Jim Minarik claims to have been "twice spat upon" as well as "denied restaurant service" because of his uniform. (The op-ed is posted in the comment section of this Web site.)"
"There's more. The Television News Archive lists an abstract from a Dec. 27, 1971, CBS Evening News segment in which returning vet Delmar Pickett tells of being spat upon in Seattle. (I've ordered a copy of the segment and will write about it upon receipt. Addendum, March 6: See this follow-up.)"
And the liberals spit on them today:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,248706,00.html
JOSHUA SPARLING, IRAQ WAR VETERAN: Yes. Nice to talk to you, by the way. What we are doing, actually, is doing the anti-protest protest. And we were there with our flags. And all that happened I was -- a fellow saw me wear my 82nd Airborne sweater, and I noticed he also had an 82nd patch on his own sleeve.
And he said I was a disgrace, basically, and that I was -- that I had blood on my hands and that I had no right wearing the uniform. And he spit at me.
"2) I never claimed to idolize the 60's, though they had some great music."
You repeat the same talking points verbatim.
Posted by: pbj on March 17, 2008 12:10 PM