Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by AhmedFaisal, Mar 11, 2008.
I don't really care what politicians do in their spare time, but for 2 exceptions:
1. They don't advocate family values. More precisely, they mustn't be hypocrites.
2. They continue to do their job.
the funny ones are the republican anti-gay hypocrites that get caught in an airport stall soliciting bjs, or in homosexual relationships altogether. Seriously, hasn't there been like one per year over the past three years?
Then there was that republican slimeball senator (with the famous wife - she was from Star Trek, I believe) that participated in orgies across the country, and forced his wife to as well. She testified against him.
What is it with politicians, business/union execs and prostitution? The love of power.
It's easier to pay for sex with cash money than it is to pay for it with respect?
There's nothing like the feeling of doing three lines of coke off the ass of a hooker named Bambi the morning you go out on the campaign trail to advocate family values and dupe the unsuspecting, unsophisticated right-wing voters into giving you more blow money.
It's a thrill.
Some people like to screw, big deal. Now on his hand, he has a wife and family and that's going to hurt them tremendously. He also fights crime and tries to eliminate prostitution but yet does it himself, which is also not good.
I'm all for legalization of prostitution but in his case we have to hold him to the standards he sets. I don't care so much about him wanting sex but he is hurting his family and doing things that he would normally arrest people for. Either of those are not condonable.
There are people from all walks and stations of life that engage the services of prostitutes.
It's just that no one cares when John Blow gets busted for solicitation.
It is the hypocrisy that bugs me. Every time I hear someone talking about family values, especially if it's anti-gay, I have to wonder what they're hiding. I especially love it when they go after someone else of another party for doing something like this, while doing it themselves or allowing it to happen within the party. Look at the Clinton thing. I was mad he lied, but he never pretended to be about family values. Meanwhile Gingrich, Thurmond, and a bunch of others were doing the same things themselves. Covering for Foley around the same time as well, while he and they were voting on anti-gay legislation. But people keep falling for it. I wonder sometimes if a lot of their followers aren't hypocrites as well. They do the same things, trying to force others to live by standards even they can't meet.
As for why, I think the Clenis put it best when he said he did it because he could. Because he thought he could get away with it. Power corrupts. Vitter can say it's a private matter and he's getting help though God, and get a standing ovation among his own. Then they can go right back to criticizing people like Spitzer with no trace of irony. Difference being, I have yet to see anyone legitimate defending Spitzer, only a few asking how exactly he got caught. Some also questioning the timing, and why so many details, while McCain and Vitter get off (no pun intended) virtually scottfree even though they're also hypocrites.
Somehow the Vitter information tooks months to leak out, while the information about Spitzer was leaked from the Justice Department within a week.
Interesting how that works...
What is it with politicians, business/union execs and prostitution?
They're really busy, they have contacts / money and they have penises.
It doesn't, but gays make a nice scapegoat because the same part of the bible that tells people not to eat certain types of foods, wear certain types of fabrics, be around menstruating women, and a bunch of other silly things also says butt sex is bad, so gays are somehow evil.
No one ever said it made sense.
You aren't a person of power who wants to exert your power over someone directly, and sexually. Or have that power taken away sexually because you're a bad little boy who needs to be punished. I'm not into that either, but somebody is. And yeah, it's usually the tough on crime and/or family values crowd who think they can do as the want, not as they say. Self hating turned outward. Same with a bunch of the closeted gay bashers.
It's ok if you're a Republican for some reason. Sometimes it isn't. I guess it all depends on if you're the victim of a liberal media conspiracy or find faith in God, or if you're just a perv. McCain, Guliani, Gingrich, and a bunch of others were guilty of the same types of things Clinton was, and unlike him, actually got divorces, but it's ok for them for some reason. Foley finally got ousted, but he was protected by the GOP inner circle for years, even during the Clinton scandal, while trying to pass anti-gay legislation (see the self hating thing). That did hurt them, but for all the wrong reasons IMO. Clinton did lie about it though, which is a legitimate concern, even though what he was lying about wasn't really.
Of course, this administration lies to us on a regular basis about things that do actually effect us, but that gets a pass for some reason from those same conservatives. I guess because it isn't about sex. Or, you know, because they aren't out to get him the way they were actually out to get Clinton. C'mon, that whole Ken Starr thing, before they even knew anything? Don't know why the Dems don't do that with Bush, they have legitimate reason, but they'd have to grow a pair first, and follow through on the talk. That doesn't happen as much as it should.
I used to feel that way, but there are definitely people to vote against, which is what most of us do.
Kinda sad that this isn't just happening here, it's places like there and the UK too, but we know how you feel.
That is how I feel sometimes - just vote for the lesser of two evils. I've done that in many elections. I voted for Kerry over Bush, but I wasn't that thrilled with Kerry; however, I was even less excited about another four years for Bush. The last few elections have been so close, you can tell that there has not been a candidate that really has impressed our nation. Look at the 2000 vote, 48.38% for Gore and 47.87 for Bush, and the 2004 vote, 50.7% for Bush and 48.3% for carry. There is a large percentage of so-called "independents" and "fence-sitters" and they have been basically evenly distributed across both parties during elections. I mean Clinton only received about 48-49% of the popular vote against Dole in 1996; the last time a candidate received over 51% of the popular vote was 1992 (68-69% by Clinton over Bush 41) which was four elections ago. The recent presidential candidates have either only appealed to their party base (Bush 43, Kerry, Gore) or made mistakes during their time as president (Bush 43 and Clinton).
A humorous post by Bill Maher on the subject:
Spitzer's Trysts: Stop Over-Thinking This