NationStates Jolt Archive

Sweet, sweet candy (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_go_co/vitter_dc_madam).

WASHINGTON - Sen. David Vitter, R-La., apologized Monday night for "a very serious sin in my past" after his telephone number appeared among those associated with an escort service operated by the so-called "D.C. Madam."

Vitter's spokesman, Joel Digrado, confirmed the statement in an e-mail sent to The Associated Press.

"This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible," Vitter said in the statement. "Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there — with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way."

The statement containing Vitter's apology said his telephone number was on old phone records of Pamela Martin and Associates before he ran for the Senate.

Now, before he ran for the Senate, Vitter was in the House of Representatives, which would presumably be the period when he, ahem, hired these young ladies for their services. Guess what he voted in favor of while in the House.

The Defense of Marriage Act.

Because his marriage is so sacred that gay couples getting hitched threatens it. Right.

Meh. Christians who protest gay marriage are generally hypocrites. Big surprise.

I'm just surprised the hooker was a woman. :p

I'm just surprised the hooker was a woman. :p

I almost spat my whisky on my laptop. That would have been a double tragedy. ;)

Because his marriage is so sacred that gay couples getting hitched threatens it. Right.

But of course. Marriage is intended to produce children. That he has his fun elsewhere is unimportant, just as long as his wife is a good sperm recepticle and child factory.
Obviously gay marriage makes a mockery of that noble idea.

But of course. Marriage is intended to produce children. That he has his fun elsewhere is unimportant, just as long as his wife is a good sperm recepticle and child factory.
Obviously gay marriage makes a mockery of that noble idea.

So was he trying to get the hooker pregnant, you think?

meh

So was he trying to get the hooker pregnant, you think?

Nono. He was trying to get his wife pregnant. Pregnancy is after all what makes marriage holy.

Nono. He was trying to get his wife pregnant. Pregnancy is after all what makes marriage holy.

So how did the hooker sex help him with that? Was he keeping in practice or something? ;)

lol, typical Republicon hypocrisy.

Nono. He was trying to get his wife pregnant. Pregnancy is after all what makes marriage holy.

Huh all so end some too, so it can't be all that holy now can it

Hooray for sex! It's a well known fact that all gays have AIDS, stingrays, and shitting dick nipples. As proof of their unworthiness I offer the following video of thje typical homosexual: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik8xpHdItrE

You know it's over 9000% true.

Well 'sinning' is not a legal term.

Sounds like it's compulsary for Republicans to visit some local girls to see what sin is all about. :p

Hooray for sex! It's a well known fact that all gays have AIDS, stingrays, and shitting dick nipples. As proof of their unworthiness I offer the following video of thje typical homosexual: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik8xpHdItrE

You know it's over 9000% true.

You can be amusing occasionally.
Well 'sinning' is not a legal term.
Of course it isn't. See, he's saying sinning because our country is so fucked up we still have religion influencing politics.

It's not like you can really criticize him; after all, God has already forgiven him.

It's not like you can really criticize him; after all, God has already forgiven him.

Ya know, except that said God doesn't exist and if He did He wouldn't be the American Christian Jeezusland type God.

To be honest, though, I actually don't care that he enjoyed the company of prostitutes. Hell, I support his right to do so! My annoyance comes from the fact that he immediately turned in Father Legislator on us when he was found out.

So how did the hooker sex help him with that? Was he keeping in practice or something? ;)

Prolly ;) I am just pointing out that him visiting hookers does not need to make him a hypocrite as far as the sanctity of marriage is concerned.
If his idea of sanctity should be shared by others is a different question.

Huh all so end some too, so it can't be all that holy now can it
Shush ;) As I mentioned it just means that his wife should be pregnant permanently.

[...]To be honest, though, I actually don't care that he enjoyed the company of prostitutes. Hell, I support his right to do so! My annoyance comes from the fact that he immediately turned in Father Legislator on us when he was found out.

Eugh? He blamed God?

Eugh? He blamed God?

No, it was the whole "I sinned, I sinned!" thing as if that is somehow something acceptable for a politician to say. For fuck's sake man, you're running the country, not a church!

What I would have loved is if he said "So what? Yeah, I had sex with a prostitute. It was fine with my wife, so who gives a damn?"

No, it was the whole "I sinned, I sinned!" thing as if that is somehow something acceptable for a politician to say. For fuck's sake man, you're running the country, not a church!

What I would have loved is if he said "So what? Yeah, I had sex with a prostitute. It was fine with my wife, so who gives a damn?"

Even better: "So what?" and "It's none of your business what my wife thinks about it."

Even better: "So what?" and "It's none of your business what my wife thinks about it."

Exactly. The personal life of a politician should have no bearing on the professional life of said politician. The important thing is their stance on the issues.

So how did the hooker sex help him with that? Was he keeping in practice or something? ;)

He was trying to verify if his sperms can teleport from the hooker to his wife. *nod*

just another fundamentalist refusing to take responsibility for his actions

"Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God..."
"Yo God! I've been caught banging 'hos. If that bothers you speak up. If you is fine with me being a hypocrite and all, don't say anything.
.
.
.
.
God?
.
.
.
I knew you wouldn't mind."

"Yo God! I've been caught banging 'hos. If that bothers you speak up. If you is fine with me being a hypocrite and all, don't say anything.
.
.
.
.
God?
.
.
.
I knew you wouldn't mind."

Time in Wanchai much?

Time in Wanchai much?
g/f would kill me if I did.

Why? Why do politicians constantly get into sex scandals? Haven't they at least figured out how to cover thier tracks by now? In fact, why haven't they learned they can't get away with this crap when they're an elected official, with political rivals and media moguls gunning for them?

lol, typical politician hypocrisy.


Fixed it for you.

Why? Why do politicians constantly get into sex scandals? Haven't they at least figured out how to cover thier tracks by now? In fact, why haven't they learned they can't get away with this crap when they're an elected official, with political rivals and media moguls gunning for them?

Powerful aphrodisiac power is...yes yes...hmmm....powerful it be.

Fixed it for you.

Yeah, true, but considering how Republicons parade themselves as pillars of morality, this is especially hypocritical for them.

meh

That's about my reaction though his wife should divorce him for his adultry.

Time in Wanchai much?

???

Sweet, sweet candy (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_go_co/vitter_dc_madam).

Now, before he ran for the Senate, Vitter was in the House of Representatives, which would presumably be the period when he, ahem, hired these young ladies for their services. Guess what he voted in favor of while in the House.

The Defense of Marriage Act.

Because his marriage is so sacred that gay couples getting hitched threatens it. Right.

Meh. It would have been more ironic had it been a gay prostitution service.

???
injoke for HK'ers.
WanChai is the sleaze capital on HK island. Full of gorgeous Filipino and Thai women all wanting 'big handsome man' to come in for 'massage'.
MongKok is the sleaze capital Kowloon side - mostly mainland Chinese women. They don't even pretend what it is they're offering is anything other that what they offering.

And before you make any inferences, I know these things because:
1. I used to live in MongKok and there were two illegal brothels (until the cops closed them down) downstairs in my building and one next door (which they left alone strangely enough) and hordes of Triad members hanging out at the local noodle shop on the corner (they'd always giggle at me when I walked past - me being the only white person who lived in that area).
2. A mate had a bar in WanChai, until the Triads closed it down (drove him out of business with their protection demands). Very cool place it was too - Turkish-style bar (he's from Uzbekistan). Anyway, Wanch is notorious for sleaze so everyone knows what's there.

Yeah, true, but considering how Republicons parade themselves as pillars of morality, this is especially hypocritical for them.
that and the fact that conservatives seem by their very nature to have really weird sexual fetishes - especially British conservatives.
Like that Tory MP who was getting rentboys to crap their pants and taking the beshitted underwear home with him.

I remember a place where girls sat under the table and gave blowjobs while you chatted and drank with friends. Or was that in Macau?
I thought that only went on in Thailand.

injoke for HK'ers.
WanChai is the sleaze capital on HK island. Full of gorgeous Filipino and Thai women all wanting 'big handsome man' to come in for 'massage'.
MongKok is the sleaze capital Kowloon side - mostly mainland Chinese women. They don't even pretend what it is they're offering is anything other that what they offering.

And before you make any inferences, I know these things because:
1. I used to live in MongKok and there were two illegal brothels (until the cops closed them down) downstairs in my building and one next door (which they left alone strangely enough) and hordes of Triad members hanging out at the local noodle shop on the corner (they'd always giggle at me when I walked past - me being the only white person who lived in that area).
2. A mate had a bar in WanChai, until the Triads closed it down (drove him out of business with their protection demands). Very cool place it was too - Turkish-style bar (he's from Uzbekistan). Anyway, Wanch is notorious for sleaze so everyone knows what's there.

I remember a place where girls sat under the table and gave blowjobs while you chatted and drank with friends. Or was that in Macau?

Yeah, true, but considering how Republicons parade themselves as pillars of morality, this is especially hypocritical for them.
You can always tell what the Republicans are up to by looking at what they accuse liberals of doing.

For instance, any time you hear a conservative or a Republican bleating about the "sanctity of marriage," you can be positive that their own marriage is anything but sacred to them. They are certain to be an adulterer, and there's a high likelihood they are also a sexual predator of some kind.

Sounds like it's compulsary for Republicans to visit some local girls to see what sin is all about. :p

yeah, but the democrates all turn out to be gay (New Jersey, McGreevey)

that and the fact that conservatives seem by their very nature to have really weird sexual fetishes - especially British conservatives.
Like that Tory MP who was getting rentboys to crap their pants and taking the beshitted underwear home with him.

:eek:

You can always tell what the Republicans are up to by looking at what they accuse liberals of doing.

For instance, any time you hear a conservative or a Republican bleating about the "sanctity of marriage," you can be positive that their own marriage is anything but sacred to them. They are certain to be an adulterer, and there's a high likelihood they are also a sexual predator of some kind.

Quoted for truth 100%.

yeah, but the democrates all turn out to be gay (New Jersey, McGreevey)

Wow. One example means all. Nice syllogism, jackass.

Maybe all Democrats don't wear seat belts (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18081876/) either?

Ummm... what's wrong with "adultery"? Or do you still cling to the idea that women are chattel property?

Bottle never implied there was anything wrong with adultery. She's just saying usually Republicans don't practice what they preach.

You can always tell what the Republicans are up to by looking at what they accuse liberals of doing.

For instance, any time you hear a conservative or a Republican bleating about the "sanctity of marriage," you can be positive that their own marriage is anything but sacred to them. They are certain to be an adulterer, and there's a high likelihood they are also a sexual predator of some kind.

Ummm... what's wrong with "adultery"? Or do you still cling to the idea that women are chattel property?

Ummm... what's wrong with "adultery"? Or do you still cling to the idea that women are chattel property?
There are so many silly bits to this post of yours that I scarcely know where to start.

Wow. One example means all. Nice syllogism, jackass.

Maybe all Democrats don't wear seat belts (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18081876/) either?

yeah, that is true. personally, i hate New Jersey (filled with liberals and democrats who think they are above the law)

yeah, that is true. personally, i hate New Jersey (filled with liberals and democrats who think they are above the law)

I remember Kennedy kids in the 1970s, driving up and down Rt 123 in McLean, Virginia, throwing beer bottles from their convertibles into the windshields of oncoming cars and laughing.

The police at the McLean substation could do nothing, because no magistrate would take them on if the police bothered to arrest them.

injoke for HK'ers.
WanChai is the sleaze capital on HK island.

So.... I'd be guessing that they would be expensive.

The legalisation of adultery and recognition of polyamourous individuals and families would do a lot to counter the prevailing, and hypocritical, social mores concerning marriage.

Monogamy is far rarer than we tell ourselves.

The legalisation of adultery and recognition of polyamourous individuals and families would do a lot to counter the prevailing, and hypocritical, social mores concerning marriage.

Monogamy is far rarer than we tell ourselves.

Adultery is legal.

While it's on the books, it is never enforced in the US.

yeah, that is true. personally, i hate New Jersey (filled with liberals and democrats who think they are above the law)

Well, I guess you're wrong, because I wear my seatbelt.

Ummm... what's wrong with "adultery"? Or do you still cling to the idea that women are chattel property?

Defending the right for Republicans to be hypocrites are you? Shocker that.

Defending the right for Republicans to be hypocrites are you? Shocker that.

No, I'm not defending that. Please learn to read. I am asking "what's wrong with adultery?" because I see nothing wrong with it.

No, I'm not defending that. Please learn to read. I am asking "what's wrong with adultery?" because I see nothing wrong with it.

And I wonder how your partner would feel about that?


And of course I was taking the fairly small leap that where you see a Republican being attacked you make excuses for the behavior. So I really don't see anything inaccurate with my post.

And I wonder how your partner would feel about that?


I have an open marriage. She doesn't believe adultery is a crime, either.

And of course I was taking the fairly small leap that where you see a Republican being attacked you make excuses for the behavior. So I really don't see anything inaccurate with my post.

I'm not defending a Republican here... so you're way off...

Bottle never implied there was anything wrong with adultery. She's just saying usually Republicans don't practice what they preach.

Likewise with the Democrats. Thank you for proving that all politicians are alike in one way or another.

yeah, that is true. personally, i hate New Jersey (filled with liberals and democrats who think they are above the law)

And Republicans do not think like that in Jersey either?

Adultery is legal.

While it's on the books, it is never enforced in the US.

I am aware of that. That is why I was discussing it as one step in a series of steps towards social acceptance of polyamoury.

The politician should have simply been able to tell the reporters it was none of the public's business. Unfortunately, due to social mores, he would have been committing political suicide if he had.

Likewise with the Democrats. Thank you for proving that all politicians are alike in one way or another.

http://isaacschrodinger.typepad.com/isaacschrodinger/images/dahm_triplets_with_american_flag_body_pa.jpg

*salutes*

It's the American Way.

I have an open marriage. She doesn't believe adultery is a crime, either.



I'm not defending a Republican here... so you're way off...

She doesn't "believe" adultery to be a crime? That's silly. Whether or not something is criminal is a simple matter of fact, not belief. I can believe that theft isn't a crime; I'd be wrong and a moron.

No, you may mean that adultery isn't IMMORAL, which is a different issue entirely. I personally believe that it IS immoral, because I feel that if it's an open relationship, then sex with other partners shouldn't be considered adultery. To me, adultery implies deception, lying, and breaking trust. If, for example, you think she's being monogamous, but she's sleeping around, that's adultery. If you both agree that taking other sexual partners is ok, then it's no longer adultery.

Furthermore, I fail to see why people who are in open relationships are so contemptuous of monogamy. I prefer open relationships, but I certainly don't disparage monogamous ones. It's all about what works best for the people in that relationship.

I am aware of that. That is why I was discussing it as one step in a series of steps towards social acceptance of polyamoury.

The politician should have simply been able to tell the reporters it was none of the public's business. Unfortunately, due to social mores, he would have been committing political suicide if he had.

I have found the term "polyamory" to be fairly limiting.

My wife and I have sex with people that we don't "love", and the sex could hardly be called "lovemaking". I call it "a good fuck".

Is there a term "polyfuckery"?

Theres one called "Fantasy" certainly....

Theres one called "Fantasy" certainly....

Ask Neesika if I'm fantasizing.

Ask Neesika if I'm fantasizing.

right right, because somehow you're magically bound to tell her the truth.

Sweet, sweet candy (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_go_co/vitter_dc_madam).



Now, before he ran for the Senate, Vitter was in the House of Representatives, which would presumably be the period when he, ahem, hired these young ladies for their services. Guess what he voted in favor of while in the House.

The Defense of Marriage Act.

Because his marriage is so sacred that gay couples getting hitched threatens it. Right.

(Waits for the "nobody's perfect" defense)

right right, because somehow you're magically bound to tell her the truth.

She has the pics.

We haven't had a good sex scandal in Congress for a while. This doesn't qualify in my mind. He already resolved this privately, and it doesn't involve little boys or dope.

We haven't had a good sex scandal in Congress for a while. This doesn't qualify in my mind. He already resolved this privately, and it doesn't involve little boys or dope.

Or a dead intern like Chandra Levy...

I'm not defending a Republican here... so you're way off...

So what are you defending? Because it couldn't be the right to commit adultery.

So what are you defending? Because it couldn't be the right to commit adultery.

I am defending the right to commit adultery.

Once again, it shows how narrow, obsequious, and vile your view of my beliefs are.

I have found the term "polyamory" to be fairly limiting.

My wife and I have sex with people that we don't "love", and the sex could hardly be called "lovemaking". I call it "a good fuck".

Is there a term "polyfuckery"?

No need. Anyone intelligent enough to use polyamoury in a sentence aleady knows that it is a very inclusive term. It encompasses the most cynical swingers and the most devout polygamous Mormons.

Politics make strange bedfellows.:)

To tie it back to the OP, I think you and I are in agreement that one can be an intelligent conservative or Republican while still being polyamourous. The trouble, in my opinion, is public acceptance.

I am defending the right to commit adultery.

Once again, it shows how narrow, obsequious, and vile your view of my beliefs are.

Hang on, hang on, what sort of adultery? Are you talking about the 'sneaky liaison without the knowledge or consent of your partner' style; or the technical adultery - where you're married but in an open relationship. Or, thinking about it - are you saying that it shouldn't be illegal to commit adultery, regardless of the morals of it.

A more precise explanation of what you mean would assist matters here.

Hang on, hang on, what sort of adultery? Are you talking about the 'sneaky liaison without the knowledge or consent of your partner' style

That is a private, not a legal problem, even in America today. No one is arrested or prosecuted for it anywhere in America. It's none of my business. For those involved, they should work it out.

or the technical adultery - where you're married but in an open relationship.

That is also private. It's not illegal in the US (it's on the books, but no one is EVER prosecuted for it).

Or, thinking about it - are you saying that it shouldn't be illegal to commit adultery, regardless of the morals of it.

Correct. And it's essentially not illegal in the US.

That is a private, not a legal problem, even in America today. No one is arrested or prosecuted for it anywhere in America. It's none of my business. For those involved, they should work it out.
That is also private. It's not illegal in the US (it's on the books, but no one is EVER prosecuted for it).
Correct. And it's essentially not illegal in the US.

Fair enough then. And it shouldn't be, either.

Fair enough then. And it shouldn't be, either.

Since it's not illegal, it shouldn't be a matter for scandal, either.

Since it's not illegal, it shouldn't be a matter for scandal, either.

In theory, yes. However, if said politician was harping on about morals (christian or no) whilst leaving work early for an 'appointment', then a scandal is justified. The focus should be his hypocrisy, however.

In theory, yes. However, if said politician was harping on about morals (christian or no) whilst leaving work early for an 'appointment', then a scandal is justified. The focus should be his hypocrisy, however.

Indeed, this isn't the act of adultery that is what is the major concern of most here, it is the mere fact that this is a person whom vocally supported "Sanctity of Marriage", in it's full Fundy Christian Sense, only to be breaking said code of conduct at the same time.

Hense, hypocrosy.

Now, had he JUST committed adultery, without all that harping on about marriage and what not, this wouldn't even be a blip, hell it'd be expected.

Indeed, this isn't the act of adultery that is what is the major concern of most here, it is the mere fact that this is a person whom vocally supported "Sanctity of Marriage", in it's full Fundy Christian Sense, only to be breaking said code of conduct at the same time.

Hense, hypocrosy.

Now, had he JUST committed adultery, without all that harping on about marriage and what not, this wouldn't even be a blip, hell it'd be expected.

I'm not so sure. Do you think any openly swinging politician could get himself elected in the USA?

I am defending the right to commit adultery.

No, you are defending the right to sleep with someone not your spouse. Quite different

Once again, it shows how narrow, obsequious, and vile your view of my beliefs are.

This coming from Remote "let's sterilize all muslims" kimchi?

I'm not so sure. Do you think any openly swinging politician could get himself elected in the USA?

Oh hell no.

But I'm saying that right now, the reason why this particular case is scandalous, is not so much the act itself, but instead the person whom committed it.

Had it come out during an election, he would be screwed, of course.

Or a dead intern like Chandra Levy...

Forgot about her. You don't hear much talk about that, nowadays. Is Condit even a congressman still?

I am defending the right to commit adultery.

Once again, it shows how narrow, obsequious, and vile your view of my beliefs are.

It shows no such thing. I simply concluded that since Bottle wasn't attacking the right to commit adultery there would be no reason for you to defend it. Evidently I was wrong, and you are defending your right from.....nobody.

In theory, yes. However, if said politician was harping on about morals (christian or no) whilst leaving work early for an 'appointment', then a scandal is justified. The focus should be his hypocrisy, however.

Oh, it's all about the hypocrisy (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/10/vitter-flashback-clinton-should-resign/):
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) first got his start in Congress after replacing former Rep. Bob Livingston (R-LA), who “abruptly resigned after disclosures of numerous affairs” in 1998. At the time, Vitter argued that an extramarital affair was grounds for resignation:

“I think Livingston’s stepping down makes a very powerful argument that Clinton should resign as well and move beyond this mess,” he said. [Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 12/20/98]

Forgot about her. You don't hear much talk about that, nowadays. Is Condit even a congressman still?

He's not, but he was completely cleared of any involvement in her death as well. Funny that RO likes to slander by innuendo, though. Just his style.

I have an open marriage. She doesn't believe adultery is a crime, either.

Couldn't it could count as a breach of contract?

Couldn't it could count as a breach of contract?

Only if you sign a prenup that says no secks outside the marriage, or words to that affect in legalese.

Only if you sign a prenup that says no secks outside the marriage, or words to that affect in legalese.

Not even surprise buttsecks?

http://i16.tinypic.com/61vq6uh.jpg

I'm just surprised the hooker was a woman. :p

ty,that was hilarious!
you get a cookie for that.

as for pol's and their infidelities,i could care less,i dont care about their private lives 1 bit,did not with clinton or any of them for that matter.

much bigger issues to look at as far as corruption and nepotism,etc.

it is ironic that most of the holier then thou types(religous types,far right nuts)always claim the moral high ground and yet are usually the worse offenders there are.

i had issues with a priest when i was a child,but i still am pretty spiritual,and oddly enough,i am conservative in alot of respects,but i dont trust them as far as i can throw them,and i certainly dont buy the piety they claim.

but really,it is a private affair between him and his wife imho,just as clinton's was/is.

i do get the irony though,and it is typical of the mindset of all that say...do as i say.

I hate these guys who claim the moral high ground and use this "superiority" as a platform to preach hate. I love it when they get their comeuppance. I still hate it when a politician's private life is used against him.

I hate these guys who claim the moral high ground and use this "superiority" as a platform to preach hate. I love it when they get their comeuppance. I still hate it when a politician's private life is used against him.

The noob that posts a lot is correct.
Someone being knocked off their moral high horse: funny
People caring about who a politician shags: not funny

The noob that posts a lot is correct.
Someone being knocked off their moral high horse: funny
People caring about who a politician shags: not funny

It's newbie, not n00b.

Sigged, man.

The noob that posts a lot is correct.
Someone being knocked off their moral high horse: funny
People caring about who a politician shags: not funny
The hypocrisy of American politicans: priceless.

Comparing stuff like this to Australia politics... I would have to say that if John Howard made this statement, I would have just puked my guts up and not worried about who sinned who.

Sweet, sweet candy (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_go_co/vitter_dc_madam).



Now, before he ran for the Senate, Vitter was in the House of Representatives, which would presumably be the period when he, ahem, hired these young ladies for their services. Guess what he voted in favor of while in the House.

The Defense of Marriage Act.

Because his marriage is so sacred that gay couples getting hitched threatens it. Right.

Well at least he wasn't chairman of the "stopping prostitution and getting hookers decent jobs" committee, which is the way these Republican scandals usually play out. Of course, there is no such committee, but still, small blessings.

Not even surprise buttsecks?

http://i16.tinypic.com/61vq6uh.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/Caturdayalready.jpg

why is it always the far right wing conservatives who preach christian beliefs, marriage, etc that wind up doing this stuff. And getting caught. Its like some weird joke I'm not in on.

I think she would make more money as a prostitute, even though she's pretty ugly looking.

If Lindsay Lohan showed up and spread her legs for me, I'm not sure I would say no.

I remember a place where girls sat under the table and gave blowjobs while you chatted and drank with friends.

Tell me - have you ever looked at a woman and seen her as a person - and not just as a series of holes to be filled?

Well with Arabs he seems to want to fill them full of holes, more often than not.....

The noob that posts a lot is correct.
Someone being knocked off their moral high horse: funny
People caring about who a politician shags: not funny

To be fair it people should care if the politician gives favours to the partner/partners and abuses his/her position.

Oh look, there's more (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19685977/).
NEW ORLEANS - Sen. David Vitter, who publicly apologized after being linked to an alleged prostitution ring in Washington, was once a client of a high-priced New Orleans brothel, a former madam told a New Orleans television station Tuesday.

Jeanette Maier, who pleaded guilty to running the Canal Street brothel in 2002, made the allegation in an interview with WDSU-TV.

"He seemed to be one of the nicest men and most honorable men I've ever met," Maier said in the taped interview.

Tell me - have you ever looked at a woman and seen her as a person - and not just as a series of holes to be filled?

Well, according to him, he has sex with a lot of people, and his wife doesn't mind.

Wouldn't it be ironic if she had the same views, and he was just something to be used and abused?

I remember a place where girls sat under the table and gave blowjobs while you chatted and drank with friends.

I didn't think you were old enough to know about Marilyn's.

And to Nazz, this is just another non-story. Just like Wilbur Mills, JFK, Clinton [escapades -- not perjury] and many other politicians that succumbed to the groupies.

To be fair it people should care if the politician gives favours to the partner/partners and abuses his/her position.

Well, there is that. But if there's not nepotism or corruption or what have you, then politicians, like everyone else, should be allowed to have any kind of sex with any other consenting adult/s.

why is it always the far right wing conservatives who preach christian beliefs, marriage, etc that wind up doing this stuff. And getting caught. Its like some weird joke I'm not in on.
Like I said earlier, it's projection.

Whatever they are preaching about, whatever they are condemning, that's what they're doing.

Examples:

Mark Foley (R, Fla.): Chaired the House caucus on missing and exploited children; wrote the sexual-predator provisions of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. Engaged in pornographic internet chats with minors.

Bob Barr (R, Georgia): Sponsored the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, saying "The flames of hedonism, the flames of narcissism, the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundation of our society, the family unit." While married to his third wife, Barr was photographed licking whipped cream off of strippers at his inaugural party.

Robert Bauman (R, Maryland): An anti-gay activist, this Republican congressman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.

William John Bennett ("drug czar"): The first person to occupy the position of "drug czar" (Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy), Bennett was charged with combating drug use and drug addiction. His books and opinion pieces were frequently quoted throughout the 1990s, and he was particularly focused on denouncing what he perceived as the lack of virtue in American society. As it turns out, he was also a compulsive gambler and admitted having lost as much as $8,000,000 within a one-year period.

Ken Calvert (R, California): A congressman and champion of "family values," Calvert was quoted as saying "We can't forgive what occurred between the President and Lewinsky." In 1993 he was caught by police receiving oral sex from a prostitute and attempted to flee the scene.

Jeff Miller, (R, Cleveland): This sponsor of Tennessee’s Marriage Protection act sought a divorce in 2005 because of an affair he was having with an office aid.

Ed Schrock, (R, Virginia): A co-sponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment and constant opponent of gay rights, Schrock withdrew his candidacy for a third term after tapes of him soliciting for gay sex surfaced.

Jim West, (R, Spokane Mayor): Backed a bill that would have barred gays and lesbians from working in schools, day-care centers and some state agencies (the bill failed, thankfully). Had a sexual affair with an 18 year old boy.

And this list doesn't even include the headliners like Rush and Newt and Dr. Laura and Bill "The Falafel" O'Reilly.

And to Nazz, this is just another non-story. Just like Wilbur Mills, JFK, Clinton [escapades -- not perjury] and many other politicians that succumbed to the groupies.

Don't you get it Myrmi? It's the hypocrisy. While Mr Fundie is screaming about sanctity of marriage, under the desk he's got a hooker blowing him.

Don't you get it Myrmi? It's the hypocrisy. While Mr Fundie is screaming about sanctity of marriage, under the desk he's got a hooker blowing him.
Of course he don't get it. This is a GOP politician we're talking about here. In Myr's heavily deluded mind, they're incapable of doing any wrong.

Don't you get it Myrmi? It's the hypocrisy. While Mr Fundie is screaming about sanctity of marriage, under the desk he's got a hooker blowing him.
I don't follow this guy because he doesn't represent me. I don't know whether your characterizations of "Fundie" and "Screaming" are accurate. Voting "Yes" for the Defense of Marriage act was silly, but not necessarily a stereotypical vote. My guess is that's hyperbole.

But I do understand hypocrisy. That's a constant among politicians. If you were to ask every member and every Senator the same question -- "Are you faithful to your wife", you would probably get the only unanimous decision in Congressional history...

All would answer "Yes", and in the back of their minds they would be wondering if you knew about the intern last summer, or the hooker on the junket to Brazil...

My expectation is that about 20% would be telling the truth with that yes answer. And there's probably a 10% chance of that happening.

Unless the politician is making a public spectacle of himself, what he does off the floor is really his business. That applies to Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Hetero and Homosexuals alike.

Of course he don't get it. This is a GOP politician we're talking about here. In Myr's heavily deluded mind, they're incapable of doing any wrong.

Grow up.

Unless the politician is making a public spectacle of himself, what he does off the floor is really his business. That applies to Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Hetero and Homosexuals alike.
In the case of "values conservatives," they ARE making public spectacles of themselves. They are running, and being elected, on platforms of supposed moral virtue. They are actively attempting to strip legal rights from citizens of this country as part of their efforts to "protect the sanctity of marriage" or the "sanctity of human life" or any other such hoo-hah.

They make MY private life into a national issue. They choose to bring government into my bedroom. At that point, their own private lives become directly relevant to the discourse. THEY advocate having government in the bedroom, so their own bedrooms should be the first under scrutiny.

I don't follow this guy because he doesn't represent me. I don't know whether your characterizations of "Fundie" and "Screaming" are accurate. Voting "Yes" for the Defense of Marriage act was silly, but not necessarily a stereotypical vote. My guess is that's hyperbole.

But I do understand hypocrisy. That's a constant among politicians. If you were to ask every member and every Senator the same question -- "Are you faithful to your wife", you would probably get the only unanimous decision in Congressional history...

All would answer "Yes", and in the back of their minds they would be wondering if you knew about the intern last summer, or the hooker on the junket to Brazil...

My expectation is that about 20% would be telling the truth with that yes answer. And there's probably a 10% chance of that happening.

Unless the politician is making a public spectacle of himself, what he does off the floor is really his business. That applies to Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Hetero and Homosexuals alike.

I'm almost tempted to agree with you... but then, if someone takes a studied and deliberate policy position on the issue of sexual morality, I don't think it is true that what 'he' does off the floor is 'his' own business.

I wonder why you assume all politicians are men?

Grow up.No need for that. Any child can see the obvious hypocrisy here.

I'm almost tempted to agree with you... but then, if someone takes a studied and deliberate policy position on the issue of sexual morality, I don't think it is true that what 'he' does off the floor is 'his' own business.

Exactly. If somebody makes sexual morality part of their PUBLIC campaign and PUBLIC office, then their sexual morality is a PUBLIC issue.

If they want their private life to stay private, then they shouldn't deliberately and intentionally make private matters into public referendums.

Please note that I am not a "values conservative". On the political compass, I lean very strongly in a libertarian direction on such matters.
How lovely for you, Myrm.

In the case of "values conservatives," they ARE making public spectacles of themselves. They are running, and being elected, on platforms of supposed moral virtue. They are actively attempting to strip legal rights from citizens of this country as part of their efforts to "protect the sanctity of marriage" or the "sanctity of human life" or any other such hoo-hah.

They make MY private life into a national issue. They choose to bring government into my bedroom. At that point, their own private lives become directly relevant to the discourse. THEY advocate having government in the bedroom, so their own bedrooms should be the first under scrutiny.

Please note that I am not a "values conservative". On the political compass, I lean very strongly in a libertarian direction on such matters.

Exactly. If somebody makes sexual morality part of their PUBLIC campaign and PUBLIC office, then their sexual morality is a PUBLIC issue.

If they want their private life to stay private, then they shouldn't deliberately and intentionally make private matters into public referendums.

I kind of look at it the same way, but from the other direction.

Bang your intern, jump a hooker, oral in the Oval Orifice, I could care less. Knock yourselves out. I don't think it makes a difference to your 'job'.

Until you start talking about how other people should behave. I don't care about the 'morality' or 'immorality'. I just think you need to stay the hell out of other people's shit, if you want them to stay out of yours.

I didn't think you were old enough to know about Marilyn's.

And to Nazz, this is just another non-story. Just like Wilbur Mills, JFK, Clinton [escapades -- not perjury] and many other politicians that succumbed to the groupies.

agreed.

I kind of look at it the same way, but from the other direction.

Bang your intern, jump a hooker, oral in the Oval Orifice, I could care less. Knock yourselves out. I don't think it makes a difference to your 'job'.

Until you start talking about how other people should behave. I don't care about the 'morality' or 'immorality'. I just think you need to stay the hell out of other people's shit, if you want them to stay out of yours.
Yeah, either way works for me.

I kind of look at it the same way, but from the other direction.

Bang your intern, jump a hooker, oral in the Oval Orifice, I could care less. Knock yourselves out. I don't think it makes a difference to your 'job'.

Until you start talking about how other people should behave. I don't care about the 'morality' or 'immorality'. I just think you need to stay the hell out of other people's shit, if you want them to stay out of yours.

At least twice, banging an intern has ended in a dead intern.

Gary Condit and Joe Scarborough.

At least twice, banging an intern has ended in a dead intern.

Gary Condit and Joe Scarborough.

Bacon is made from pigs.

Yeah, either way works for me.

Stop hijacking my posts for sexual immorality!

:D

Muslims and Jews don't eat pork...

(see, I can turn any thread into a Muslim/Jew thread)

I just figured, if we were posting irrelevent wank that had nothing to do with the topic, bacon is nice.

Bacon is made from pigs.

Muslims and Jews don't eat pork...

(see, I can turn any thread into a Muslim/Jew thread)

See I love this line of argument from the conservatives who have their back to the wall

"well, if you went up to them and asked them if they're faithful they'd all lie..."

We're not talking about whether they'd lie or not. We're not talking about what some hypothetical politician of a hypotheticla party with a hypothetical spouse. I don't care if they have affairs and frankly speaking I'd expect them to lie about it. It's not about LYING about the affair. It's not about LYING about having sex with someone else.

It is about a republican speaker of the house standing in front of congress and the american people and speaking about the immorality of the president for having an affair while AT THE SAME TIME cheating on his wife who is the hospital recoveirng from cancer.

It is about a senator who voted for a law that would limit the rights of homosexuals in order ot preserve what he believed is a sacred institution having sex with a prostitute behind his wife's back.

It is about a congressman being on a committee to help minimize sexual exploitation of children while at the same time sending sexual explicit emails to his minor page.

It is about an evangelical republican preacher (not a politician granted, but an extremely powerful and well connected person) shouting from his pulpet the immorality of homosexuality after ordering up a little something something the night before.

It is not hypocracy to have an affair (depending on culture and ypour definition of "affair", it might be immoral, but not hypocritical). Clinton wasn't a hypocrite. Why? Because he never tried to pass legislation making it illegal to have an affair. he never stood in front of the nation and talked about how immoral another perosn was for having an affair. He did not try to pass legislation trying to preserve what he viewed as a sacred institution while at the same time going against that sacred institution. He did not do so while at the same time being on a committee trying to eliminate the very thing he was doing.

And neither did JFK.

But gingrich did.

And foley did.

And this guy did.

Meh. It's as much of a non-story as Ted Kennedy (who consistently votes and shouts against guns) having his bodyguard arrested at the Capitol with two submachineguns, two pistols, and about 600 rounds of 9mm on him back in the early 1990s.

Yes, no guns for you, but Ted needs guns for his bodyguard.

And if you say that's a non-story, then the OP is a non-story, for exactly the same reasons.

Don't want to get caught looking like a retarded hypocrite politician? Then leave me alone on what I do, what I possess, or what I think.

Meh. It's as much of a non-story as Ted Kennedy (who consistently votes and shouts against guns) having his bodyguard arrested at the Capitol with two submachineguns, two pistols, and about 600 rounds of 9mm on him back in the early 1990s.

Yes, no guns for you, but Ted needs guns for his bodyguard.

So wait, ted kennedy who was against guns didn't have any guns on him? Yeah, that is a non story.

unfortunatly for this senator, it wasn't his bodyguard that was screwing the prostitute, it was him.

Stop hijacking my posts for sexual immorality!

:D
Related hijack:

I'm having a political discussion with my dad, and my kid brother is in the room playing videogames while we're talking. Our discussion happens to involve use of the word "bicameral" several times. Dad gets up to go make food. Little Brother pauses his game, looks around very carefully, and then comes over to ask me softly,

"If all those people in Congress are bicameral, why are they trying to ban gay marriage?"

It took me a second to figure out what he was talking about.

Don't want to get caught looking like a retarded hypocrite politician? Then leave me alone on what I do, what I possess, or what I think.

So once they don't talk about ravening bigotry, an overblown sense of importance, or poke around under the bed for muslims, they're ok?

So wait, ted kennedy who was against guns didn't have any guns on him? Yeah, that is a non story.

unfortunatly for this senator, it wasn't his bodyguard that was screwing the prostitute, it was him.

Saved me having to type it.

It's not comparing apples to oranges, it's apples to astronauts.

Meh. It's as much of a non-story as Ted Kennedy (who consistently votes and shouts against guns) having his bodyguard arrested at the Capitol with two submachineguns, two pistols, and about 600 rounds of 9mm on him back in the early 1990s.

Yes, no guns for you, but Ted needs guns for his bodyguard.

And if you say that's a non-story, then the OP is a non-story, for exactly the same reasons.

Don't want to get caught looking like a retarded hypocrite politician? Then leave me alone on what I do, what I possess, or what I think.

If my last name was Kennedy you can bet my guards would be armed to the teeth. Of course I was a Kennedy you can bet your ass I wouldn't be anywhere near politics.


Kind of looking forward to Ted shuffling off one of these days, can't stand that man.

Related hijack:

I'm having a political discussion with my dad, and my kid brother is in the room playing videogames while we're talking. Our discussion happens to involve use of the word "bicameral" several times. Dad gets up to go make food. Little Brother pauses his game, looks around very carefully, and then comes over to ask me softly,

"If all those people in Congress are bicameral, why are they trying to ban gay marriage?"

It took me a second to figure out what he was talking about.

Little Brother is funny. :) And accidentally probably a lot more insightful than he knows...

So wait, ted kennedy who was against guns didn't have any guns on him? Yeah, that is a non story.

unfortunatly for this senator, it wasn't his bodyguard that was screwing the prostitute, it was him.

Ted insisted publicly that he needed the guns.

You see the same hypocrisy out of most anti-gun celebrities and politicians.

Take Rosie O'Donnell for example. Who has probably the most heavily armed entourage of any celebrity, short of the President. And drapes REAL linked ammunition on her kid (the links, BTW, are considered illegal under the now-expired Assault Weapons Ban - I wonder where she got them).

Or Sean Penn, who is also against gun ownership, but has a carry permit and carries a 45 all the time when in LA.

Even the famous Sen. Diane Feinstein carried a gun.

But doesn't want us to have one...

Dear Mr. Franklin:

Thank you for writing to me about my permit to carry a concealed weapon. I
would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight.

I possessed a concealed weapon permit for a short time beginning in 1976.
In the mid-1970s, a terrorist organization, The New World Liberation Front,
carried out two attacks against me and my family. In the first, a bomb
was placed outside the window of my daughter’s bedroom. It detonated
but did not explode. We were lucky: the weather was particularly (and
unusually) cold, and the
explosive they used didn’t explode in below-freezing temperatures. In
the second, they
shot out the windows of our beach home. My husband was terminally ill
with cancer
at the time.

Later, some of the members of the New World Liberation Front were arrested,
and the threat abated. At that point, I had the gun—and several other
weapons that were turned into the police—melted into a cross, which I
presented to Pope John Paul
II when I visited Rome in 1982. Currently, I do not possess a gun, nor
do I have a permit
to carry a concealed weapon.

I hope this addresses what you may have heard on the subject. If I can be
of additional assistance, please do not hesitate to call my Washington, D.C.
staff at (202) 224-8209; 3841.

Wonder why she felt the need and the right to own and carry a handgun, if none of us should be allowed to...

Ted insisted publicly that he needed the guns.

You see the same hypocrisy out of most anti-gun celebrities and politicians.

Take Rosie O'Donnell for example. Who has probably the most heavily armed entourage of any celebrity, short of the President. And drapes REAL linked ammunition on her kid (the links, BTW, are considered illegal under the now-expired Assault Weapons Ban - I wonder where she got them).

Or Sean Penn, who is also against gun ownership, but has a carry permit and carries a 45 all the time when in LA.

You still appear to think a hired bodyguard (which is, basically, an armed profession) is somehow equivalent to your own sovereign self?

Rich and powerful people have bodyguards... why? Because people make deliberate targets of them.

On the other hand, why does the average american lowbrow NEED a gun? He doesn't. So why arm them?

Your argument is like saying that a nation with a negative gun law should disarm it's military.

Even the famous Sen. Diane Feinstein carried a gun.

But doesn't want us to have one...



Wonder why she felt the need and the right to own and carry a handgun, if none of us should be allowed to...

So she proposed an amendment to repeal the second amendment? Wow.

Even the famous Sen. Diane Feinstein carries a gun.

But doesn't want us to have one...
Googled "Diane Feinstein gun", got this from the first link:

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein unveiled a gun control proposal that would require federally approved licensing of all owners of handguns and certain semi-automatic weapons. Feinstein said her plan is intended to keep handguns and semi-automatic firearms away from “criminals, people with mental disabilities, and children.”"

Unless you are asserting that we are all children, mentally disabled, or criminals, it appears that Sen. Feinstein does not, in fact, want to prevent "us" from having guns.

She also voted NO on the Hatch amendment, which was for increasing mandatory penalties for the illegal transfer or use of firearms, funding additional drug case prosecutors, and requiring background check on purchasers at gun shows. (In other words, a YES vote would have supported stronger penalties.)

So she proposed an amendment to repeal the second amendment? Wow.
Nope. RO is lying, yet again. No surprise, really, just the usual pile of adorable dithering.

Even the famous Sen. Diane Feinstein carried a gun.

But doesn't want us to have one...



Wonder why she felt the need and the right to own and carry a handgun, if none of us should be allowed to...

Reading comprehension could be your friend, if you'd let it.

You post a link you apparently didn't even read - because it quite clearly states extenuating circustances that easily address your 'question'.

Googled "Diane Feinstein gun", got this from the first link:

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein unveiled a gun control proposal that would require federally approved licensing of all owners of handguns and certain semi-automatic weapons. Feinstein said her plan is intended to keep handguns and semi-automatic firearms away from “criminals, people with mental disabilities, and children.”"

Unless you are asserting that we are all criminals, mentally disabled, or criminals, it appears that Sen. Feinstein does not, in fact, want to prevent "us" from having guns.

She also voted NO on the Hatch amendment, which was for increasing mandatory penalties for the illegal transfer or use of firearms, funding additional drug case prosecutors, and requiring background check on purchasers at gun shows. (In other words, a YES vote would have supported stronger penalties.)

She voted yes on the Assault Weapons Ban, which was a ridiculous piece of legislation.

Want to argue that one?


Sen. Feinstein regrets that her "assault weapon" law didn`t require people to turn their guns over to the police, saying on 60 Minutes: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it." Apparently, she`s still trying.

Ted insisted publicly that he needed the guns.

You mean a highly known senator from an extremely famous political family and the brother of TWO assassinated politicians dared to suggest that he actually might need a bit more protection than the average schmuck?

Really?

Moreover, there's a bit of a difference here. Anti-gun politicians want to get rid of guns because they, shockingly, kill people.

But it's not really hypocritical for a anti gun politician to have a gun. Why? Because there are still a bunch of crazy fucks out there who have guns. And trust me, ted kennedy of all people knows that.

So while I may symbolically toss my gun away, all the crazy fucks out there with guns, still have their guns. It is not at ALL hypocritical for someone to go "I don't like guns, I wish there were no guns, I am working to get rid of all guns, but as of RIGHT now, while there are still crazy fucks out there with guns, I need protection."

That doesn't work this way "I don't like gay sex, I wish there was no gay sex, I am working ot get rid of all gay sex, but as of right now, while there are still gays out there having sex, I need to fuck a prostitute".

That one...doesn't work so well does it?

Reading comprehension could be your friend, if you'd let it.

You post a link you apparently didn't even read - because it quite clearly states extenuating circustances that easily address your 'question'.

She doesn't want us to have extenuating circumstances. See the post where she wants us to turn all of them in.

You mean a highly known senator from an extremely famous political family and the brother of TWO assassinated politicians dared to suggest that he actually might need a bit more protection than the average schmuck?

Really?

Moreover, there's a bit of a difference here. Anti-gun politicians want to get rid of guns because they, shockingly, kill people.

But it's not really hypocritical for a anti gun politician to have a gun. Why? Because there are still a bunch of crazy fucks out there who have guns. And trust me, ted kennedy of all people knows that.

So while I may symbolically toss my gun away, all the crazy fucks out there with guns, still have their guns. It is not at ALL hypocritical for someone to go "I don't like guns, I wish there were no guns, I am working to get rid of all guns, but as of RIGHT now, while there are still crazy fucks out there with guns, I need protection."

That doesn't work this way "I don't like gay sex, I wish there was no gay sex, I am working ot get rid of all gay sex, but as of right now, while there are still gays out there having sex, I need to fuck a prostitute".

That one...doesn't work so well does it?

Why should a politician have the right to "extenuating circumstances" and then deny the same to me?

Are you missing something? I think you are.

Why should a politician have the right to "extenuating circumstances" and then deny the same to me?

Are you missing something? I think you are.

No, I think you're missing something. It's called "a source".

edit: oh, I see what you mean. You mean the politician who would want everyone to turn in guns, but because everyone did NOT turn in guns, so there are still crazy fucks with guns, so she still needs to protect herself from the crazy fucks with guns? your logic is lacking, once again. Again, it is not at all hypocritical for someone to say "I wish nobody had guns, but people DO have guns, so I need to protect myself from those crazy fucks with guns, but of course, if I manage to get the guns away from those crazy fucks, I won't need one anymore"

That's not hypocracy in the slightest.

She doesn't want us to have extenuating circumstances. See the post where she wants us to turn all of them in.

All... what? Assault weapons?

You're bitching and whining because you can't have a machine gun?

Poor you. However can you defend yourself, or hunt a possum without armour piercing rounds...

She doesn't want us to have extenuating circumstances. See the post where she wants us to turn all of them in.

She was referring to assault weapons specifically, not all weapons. That bastard "context" has jail-buttsecksed your buddy "quote-mine" again.

Why should a politician have the right to "extenuating circumstances" and then deny the same to me?

Are you missing something? I think you are.

Because a politician has extenuating circumstances you don't have.

It really isn't that complex.

No, I think you're missing something. It's called "a source".

Maybe you should read the letter from Feinstein that I posted.

Here's the link, if you're too dull-witted to use Google.

http://cgi.stanford.edu/group/wais/cgi-bin/index.php?p=9475

Here's the link to the "turn them all in" quote from her.

http://saf.org/pub/rkba/hindsight/hs980210.html

CBS "60 Minutes" segment for Feb. 5, 1995

Feinstein admitted that the gun and magazine ban had little practical value, that it was all symbolism and cosmetics. She told CBS' Leslie Stahl that she didn't have the votes to do anything more, much as she wanted to. She tried to blame the industry and gunowners, but she made a stunning admission for all the viewers to see, hear and record.

For the first time on network television, a flustered Feinstein admitted that her real agenda is to ban and confiscate all guns.

"If it were up to me," she told Stahl, "I would tell Mr. and Mrs. America to turn them in—turn them all in."

Feinstein said she would like to ban and remove all guns from American homes, she admitted in an almost tearful moment of defensiveness, but she said she just simply didn't have the votes for that in the Senate, or in even in the House.

Because a politician has extenuating circumstances you don't have.

It really isn't that complex.

Oh, so no one in real life is ever in fear for their life... or are you saying that a politician's life is ALWAYS worth more than the life of a constituent...

or are you saying that a politician's life is ALWAYS worth more than the life of a constituent...
Yes, RO, I'm sure that's exactly what Graves was saying. Politicians' lives are worth more. Yes, that's a totally plausible interpretation, and is in no way a lame and obvious attempt to distract via emotive bullshit...

Maybe you should read the letter from Feinstein that I posted.

Here's the link, if you're too dull-witted to use Google.

http://cgi.stanford.edu/group/wais/cgi-bin/index.php?p=9475

Here's the link to the "turn them all in" quote from her.

http://saf.org/pub/rkba/hindsight/hs980210.html

CBS "60 Minutes" segment for Feb. 5, 1995


Now I'm waiting for the usual - "She never appeared on 60 Minutes, and she never wrote that letter..."

Oh, so no one in real life is ever in fear for their life... or are you saying that a politician's life is ALWAYS worth more than the life of a constituent...

Neither of those things, actually.

If someone wants to kill you, as a nobody, it is likely because of something you do... you shagged his wife... or maybe you were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If someone wants to kill you as a politician, it's because of who you are - your public recognition value.. maybe it's what makes you a target, or maybe just the famous face is enough for the assassin to call attention to x, y or z.

If YOU, personally, live in such fear of your life that you feel the need for firearms (indeed, you seem to be arguing you need assault weapons, no less), then you are either involved in some bad shit (in which case, I have no real sympathy for your plight) or you are clinically paranoid (in which case, heaven forbid assault weapons ever should be in your hands).

In the case of "values conservatives," they ARE making public spectacles of themselves. They are running, and being elected, on platforms of supposed moral virtue. They are actively attempting to strip legal rights from citizens of this country as part of their efforts to "protect the sanctity of marriage" or the "sanctity of human life" or any other such hoo-hah.

They make MY private life into a national issue. They choose to bring government into my bedroom. At that point, their own private lives become directly relevant to the discourse. THEY advocate having government in the bedroom, so their own bedrooms should be the first under scrutiny.

I'm almost tempted to agree with you... but then, if someone takes a studied and deliberate policy position on the issue of sexual morality, I don't think it is true that what 'he' does off the floor is 'his' own business.

Like I said, I don't follow the guy's career. But let's take a hypothetical case. If the pol did hang their hat on their "righteous" moral character, then fire away. They deserve it.

But, it's a call that needs to be made on behavior and not on party affiliation. Nazz is just a party hack, so I don't expect much more from him.

Better than spreading it in the papers, just have a lobbyist mention this indiscretion to them on the eve of the next big vote on the legislation of morality.


I wonder why you assume all politicians are men?
Easy generalization...Why make an issue of it?

Yes, RO, I'm sure that's exactly what Graves was saying. Politicians' lives are worth more. Yes, that's a totally plausible interpretation, and is in no way a lame and obvious attempt to distract via emotive bullshit...

Got to be easier than making an argument.

Especially when the whole thing is just a strawman charade anyway... this little red herring is designed to make us forget that the 'moral' Right are hypocritical assholes who can't keep the snake in the cage even long enough to push their corrupt agendas.

Neither of those things, actually.

If someone wants to kill you, as a nobody, it is likely because of something you do... you shagged his wife... or maybe you were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If someone wants to kill you as a politician, it's because of who you are - your public recognition value.. maybe it's what makes you a target, or maybe just the famous face is enough for the assassin to call attention to x, y or z.

If YOU, personally, live in such fear of your life that you feel the need for firearms (indeed, you seem to be arguing you need assault weapons, no less), then you are either involved in some bad shit (in which case, I have no real sympathy for your plight) or you are clinically paranoid (in which case, heaven forbid assault weapons ever should be in your hands).

I'm not clinically paranoid, nor am I in some bad shit.

Yet I've used a weapon to stop a crime several times in my life. And I wear a pistol everywhere I go.

Feinstein admitted on 60 Minutes that passing a law about assault weapons is really about banning all guns if possible - it's just a stepping stone to getting where she wants to go. So, she's making the slippery slope argument, not me.

Criminals don't just stay in the "bad part of town". They go where they please, and do what they please.

I have a great idea. Why don't we pass a law that makes it mandatory for people who carry weapons to carry them concealed - and then, if you're not carrying a weapon, you have to wear a large button that has a bullseye on it. For those who own no weapons in their homes, there must be a large sign that says "Occupants Completely Unarmed", and for those who are armed, "Occupants Armed".

Guess which will be on the receiving end of more crime, since 94 % of US violent crime is committed without any weapon at all?

Got to be easier than making an argument.

Especially when the whole thing is just a strawman charade anyway... this little red herring is designed to make us forget that the 'moral' Right are hypocritical assholes who can't keep the snake in the cage even long enough to push their corrupt agendas.

Read back in the thread - I'm not defending moral hypocrites.

Got to be easier than making an argument.

Especially when the whole thing is just a strawman charade anyway... this little red herring is designed to make us forget that the 'moral' Right are hypocritical assholes who can't keep the snake in the cage even long enough to push their corrupt agendas.

Nice to see that Bottle can't possibly come up with anything to deflate Feinstein's comment on 60 Minutes.

But, it's a call that needs to be made on behavior and not on party affiliation. Nazz is just a party hack, so I don't expect much more from him.


Except when party affiliation trades on the agenda... as in the Dirty South, where 'moral' crusading is a large part of the political process.

If you are going to win hearts and minds for your PARTY with your 'moral' crusade, then your own deviant tendencies are going to reflect badly on your whole party.

Republicans have pushed strongly on 'sexual morality' and 'religious values'. Any chink in that armour affects the whole entity.


Easy generalization...Why make an issue of it?

Because it is clearly wrong, and ridiculously sexist. I chose not to embrace your phallocentrism.

Nope. RO is lying, yet again. No surprise, really, just the usual pile of adorable dithering.

Well honestly after the stupid crap he pulled in that thread yesterday and this, he's on my list. I've read quite enough of his paranoia.

Nice to see that Bottle can't possibly come up with anything to deflate Feinstein's comment on 60 Minutes.

More irrelevent wank.

It's good as diversion, but it's a pisspoor attempt if it's supposed to be debate.

Bottle was responding to your deliberate misinterpretation of what I said about 'extenuating circumstance'. You know that - so why attempt to railroad like this?

Well honestly after the stupid crap he pulled in that thread yesterday and this, he's on my list. I've read quite enough of his paranoia.

See the two links.

Show me where I'm lying here.

Read back in the thread - I'm not defending moral hypocrites.

Yes... yes you are actually.

You are suggesting their is nothing wrong with this guy being a sexual hypocrite because... well, as far as I can see, your argument for why it's okay is that 'some Democrats might be hypocrites too'.

Which would have worked better, perhaps, if you'd been able to find a genuine case where it was true.

Me - I'd have gone for money in a freezer, rather than this half-assed gun thing.

More irrelevent wank.

It's good as diversion, but it's a pisspoor attempt if it's supposed to be debate.

Bottle was responding to your deliberate misinterpretation of what I said about 'extenuating circumstance'. You know that - so why attempt to railroad like this?

It's not irrelevant. She insisted that Feinstein is not about getting rid of guns.

Bottle is utterly WRONG.

This is relevant, because it makes Feinstein a hypocrite.

On a moral issue (self defense) that is important to 60 million voters.

See?

It's not irrelevant. She insisted that Feinstein is not about getting rid of guns.

Bottle is utterly WRONG.

This is relevant, because it makes Feinstein a hypocrite.

On a moral issue (self defense) that is important to 60 million voters.

See?

It is irrelevent, because you posted this all in response to what? The comments about your deliberate misinterpretation of the 'extenuating circumstance' remark. Which you've still neither admitted, nor addressed.

I'm not clinically paranoid, nor am I in some bad shit.

Yet I've used a weapon to stop a crime several times in my life. And I wear a pistol everywhere I go.

Feinstein admitted on 60 Minutes that passing a law about assault weapons is really about banning all guns if possible - it's just a stepping stone to getting where she wants to go. So, she's making the slippery slope argument, not me.

Criminals don't just stay in the "bad part of town". They go where they please, and do what they please.

I have a great idea. Why don't we pass a law that makes it mandatory for people who carry weapons to carry them concealed - and then, if you're not carrying a weapon, you have to wear a large button that has a bullseye on it. For those who own no weapons in their homes, there must be a large sign that says "Occupants Completely Unarmed", and for those who are armed, "Occupants Armed".

Guess which will be on the receiving end of more crime, since 94 % of US violent crime is committed without any weapon at all?

I've lived in a nation that has theoretically no guns, and one which claims a god-given-right to them.

One of those nations is insanely paranoid about violence, the other isn't.

I wonder which is which?

It's not irrelevant. She insisted that Feinstein is not about getting rid of guns.

Actually, no I didn't. I said Feinstein is not about making sure that "we" are unable to have guns.

Feinstein, like all sane individuals, is interested in restricting who may have guns, and which sort of guns they may have. Sane humans can agree that convicted serial killers probably shouldn't be licensed to own assault rifles, right? We simply draw the line for specific restrictions in different places.

Feinstein's record shows that she's not trying to ban all gun ownership. That is what I responded to. You claimed she wants to make sure "we" can't have guns; I have shown that this is incorrect.

All your other random accusations are pure invention. But please, don't let me stop you from arguing with yourself.


Bottle is utterly WRONG.
Given your track record, this statement coming from you means that there are actually upwards of a dozen sources proving not only that I am right, but that I am always right in every situation.

:D

It is irrelevent, because you posted this all in response to what? The comments about your deliberate misinterpretation of the 'extenuating circumstance' remark. Which you've still neither admitted, nor addressed.

I have addressed it.

Why should a politician have a right to an extenuating circumstance, where an ordinary citizen should not?

And your answer was that a politician is always more important, and if something bad happens to a citizen, well they had it coming.

Funny, crime doesn't work that way. And there are millions of self-defensive gun uses every year in the US that are legal.

You're the one without an answer to extenuating circumstances, unless you believe that somehow, politicians are born to the color of royalty, and the rest of us are mere peons whose lives aren't worth protecting.

I've lived in a nation that has theoretically no guns, and one which claims a god-given-right to them.

One of those nations is insanely paranoid about violence, the other isn't.

I wonder which is which?

One has a radical increase in gun crime despite a massive gun ban - the other has had a 64 percent drop in violent crime over the past ten years with a 100% increase in gun ownership.

God, I've posted the same Dept of Justice stats over and over again - can't you read?

Sorry to interrupt this stunningly elegant hijack about gun control, but I think we also have to look at social mores. The current paradigm about marriage is that the only good marriage is one where the two people are a man and a woman who have a monogamous relationship. Other types of marriages are considered to be abnormal, and are often thought of as bad.

This is the mindset of many conservatives. I am not going to debate whether or not this is a good or intelligent viewpoint. What is important is that in order for a politician to get elected by such a conservative base, he or she must appear to be supportive of such a viewpoint. This is true regardless of the beliefs of the politician and his or her spouse. So while we may be able to point a finger and rightfully claim hypocrisy, we also have to acknowledge that conservative and Republican politicians don't have much of a choice.

Why should a politician have a right to an extenuating circumstance, where an ordinary citizen should not?

*ponders*
Because politicians are supposed to serve the citizens instead of themselves, and as such should deserve "noble points" ?

Hmm. No.

Here's a quote from Jeffrey Snyder:

Gun control is a moral crusade against a benighted, barbaric citizenry. This is demonstrated not only by the ineffectualness of gun control in preventing crime, and by the fact that it focuses on restricting the behavior of the law-abiding rather than apprehending and punishing the guilty, but also by the execration that gun control proponents heap on gun owners and their evil instrumentality, the NRA. Gun owners are routinely portrayed as uneducated, paranoid rednecks fascinated by and prone to violence, i.e., exactly the type of person who opposes the liberal agenda and whose moral and social "re-education" is the object of liberal social policies. Typical of such bigotry is New York Gov. Mario Cuomo's famous characterization of gun-owners as "hunters who drink beer, don't vote, and lie to their wives about where they were all weekend." Similar vituperation is rained upon the NRA, characterized by Sen. Edward Kennedy as the "pusher's best friend," lampooned in political cartoons as standing for the right of children to carry firearms to school and, in general, portrayed as standing for an individual's God-given right to blow people away at will.

The stereotype is, of course, false. As criminologist and constitutional lawyer Don B. Kates, Jr. and former HCI contributor Dr. Patricia Harris have pointed out, "[s]tudies consistently show that, on the average, gun owners are better educated and have more prestigious jobs than non-owners.... Later studies show that gun owners are less likely than non-owners to approve of police brutality, violence against dissenters, etc."

Conservatives must understand that the antipathy many liberals have for gun owners arises in good measure from their statist utopianism. This habit of mind has nowhere been better explored than in The Republic. There, Plato argues that the perfectly just society is one in which an unarmed people exhibit virtue by minding their own business in the performance of their assigned functions, while the government of philosopher-kings, above the law and protected by armed guardians unquestioning in their loyalty to the state, engineers, implements, and fine-tunes the creation of that society, aided and abetted by myths that both hide and justify their totalitarian manipulation.

The bolded part explains what Grave and Bottle apparently believe.

Sorry to interrupt this stunningly elegant hijack about gun control, but I think we also have to look at social mores. The current paradigm about marriage is that the only good marriage is one where the two people are a man and a woman who have a monogamous relationship. Other types of marriages are considered to be abnormal, and are often thought of as bad.

This is the mindset of many conservatives. I am not going to debate whether or not this is a good or intelligent viewpoint. What is important is that in order for a politician to get elected by such a conservative base, he or she must appear to be supportive of such a viewpoint. This is true regardless of the beliefs of the politician and his or her spouse. So while we may be able to point a finger and rightfully claim hypocrisy, we also have to acknowledge that conservative and Republican politicians don't have much of a choice.

The government needs to stay the fuck out of people's lives.

Stay the fuck out of sexual mores.

Stay the fuck out of marriage.

Stay the fuck away from guns.

Period.

Sorry to interrupt this stunningly elegant hijack about gun control, but I think we also have to look at social mores. The current paradigm about marriage is that the only good marriage is one where the two people are a man and a woman who have a monogamous relationship. Other types of marriages are considered to be abnormal, and are often thought of as bad.

This is the mindset of many conservatives. I am not going to debate whether or not this is a good or intelligent viewpoint. What is important is that in order for a politician to get elected by such a conservative base, he or she must appear to be supportive of such a viewpoint. This is true regardless of the beliefs of the politician and his or her spouse. So while we may be able to point a finger and rightfully claim hypocrisy, we also have to acknowledge that conservative and Republican politicians don't have much of a choice.
"Don't have much of a choice"? Bullcrap. That's like saying that KKK members have no choice but to be racist.

Well, yeah, if you want to be Grand Dragon of the KKK then you'll have to be a racist fuck. But who says you've gotta be Grand Dragon of the KKK? Nobody is forcing you to lead a bunch of racist fuckwits. You could choose to, you know, not.

Republicans don't have to be homophobic racist woman-hating superstitious nuts. It's quite possible to function in politics without any of those. Sure, you won't attract the homophobic racist woman-hating superstitious nut vote. Boo hoo hoo.

Besides which, the "conservative base" thing is such bunk. Far more people OPPOSE "conservative family values" than support them. Most Americans think gay people should be recognized as full legal citizens, with equal right to legal unions. Most Americans believe in contraception and legal abortion. Most Americans don't own guns, and most Americans support gun control. The list goes on.

Republicans have chosen to hitch their star to a loud minority of bigoted kooks. Nobody forced them to do this. Many within their own party are now seeing the light, and pointing out that maybe this isn't such a good idea after all. Particularly since each new generation of voters is becoming MORE liberal than the last.

"Don't have much of a choice"? Bullcrap. That's like saying that KKK members have no choice but to be racist.

The Democrats were the party of the KKK for decades - somehow, they managed to distance themselves from it (with the exception of Robert Byrd, who is an aged embarassment of a Senator on a par with the late Helms).

A lot of Republicans lean libertarian, and vote Republican only because the Democrats are statists and the Libertarian Party is not credible.

I DO have a problem with the "Defense of Marriage" crap. And the ceaseless moralizing.

But I have to put up with it unless the Democratic Party is going to abandon their statist aims.

The government needs to stay the fuck out of people's lives.

Stay the fuck out of sexual mores.

Stay the fuck out of marriage.

Stay the fuck away from guns.

Period.

Can you please refrain from quoting me if you aren't going to address the point of my post?

Thank you.

To be clear: I am not talking about the government. I am discussing the expectations of society as to what government should do. Currently, there is a large segment of voters that feel government should be in the bedroom. So, if you want to get the government out of the bedroom, you have to deal with these voters.

Can you please refrain from quoting me if you aren't going to address the point of my post?

Thank you.

To be clear: I am not talking about the government. I am discussing the expectations of society as to what government should do. Currently, there is a large segment of voters that feel government should be in the bedroom. So, if you want to get the government out of the bedroom, you have to deal with these voters.

We may assume that most of these voters are Christians.

Not necessarily fundamentalists, but very probably. Maybe they need to read their Bibles, and go back to Sunday School, and relearn that part about not casting stones.

Too many "upright" Christians believe somehow that they are empowered to castigate others about sin - when the teachings of Jesus don't imply it.

I'm at a loss to explain the non-religious who seem to be equally moralistic.

The government needs to stay the fuck out of people's lives.

Stay the fuck out of sexual mores.

Stay the fuck out of marriage.

Stay the fuck away from guns.

Period.

No, no and no.

Government SHOULD be involved in marriage - because marriage is bigger than just a ceremony and a nice dress. What it should not do - is decide WHO can get married.

The laws that prevent Mormons from being polygamous, and the attempts to outlaw gay marriage, are both enemies of Constitutionality. Government has a responsibility to eradicate such things.

Government should also be involved in sexuality - where it is not between legally consenting individuals. It should have NO impact on deciding who can do what to whom WITHIN those circumstances, though.

But where do these two differ from your last point? Simple - the government has a responsibility to decide if it is appropriate that the populace be armed.

But where do these two differ from your last point? Simple - the government has a responsibility to decide if it is appropriate that the populace be armed.

Apparently, the courts in the US are beginning to differ with you on this, and agree with the Founding Fathers.

1. Don't sue gunmakers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/22/AR2006052200820.html

2. Don't pass gun bans.

US Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to grant an en-banc rehearing of their decision on the Parker gun-rights case that overturned the Washington, DC handgun ban as a violation of rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

This case may well be appealed to the United States Supreme Court and promises to have a major impact on over 20,000 laws that infringe American’s rights to keep and bear arms.

Senior Appeals Court Judge Laurence H. Silberman is the author of the solid and well-written court’s opinion that many of my lawyer friend’s have called bulletproof.

Link to the actual decision:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

The bolded part explains what Grave and Bottle apparently believe.

Going to make up our arguments for us, rather than addressing what we said?

I suppose it's the only way you can make a pretence of success.

"Don't have much of a choice"? Bullcrap. That's like saying that KKK members have no choice but to be racist.

Well, yeah, if you want to be Grand Dragon of the KKK then you'll have to be a racist fuck. But who says you've gotta be Grand Dragon of the KKK? Nobody is forcing you to lead a bunch of racist fuckwits. You could choose to, you know, not.

Republicans don't have to be homophobic racist woman-hating superstitious nuts. It's quite possible to function in politics without any of those. Sure, you won't attract the homophobic racist woman-hating superstitious nut vote. Boo hoo hoo.

Besides which, the "conservative base" thing is such bunk. Far more people OPPOSE "conservative family values" than support them. Most Americans think gay people should be recognized as full legal citizens, with equal right to legal unions. Most Americans believe in contraception and legal abortion. Most Americans don't own guns, and most Americans support gun control. The list goes on.

Republicans have chosen to hitch their star to a loud minority of bigoted kooks. Nobody forced them to do this. Many within their own party are now seeing the light, and pointing out that maybe this isn't such a good idea after all. Particularly since each new generation of voters is becoming MORE liberal than the last.

I meant 'don't have much of a choice if they want to get elected'. To me, it seems like simple math. You have two parties. One of which has to court the homophobic racist woman-hating superstitious nut vote in order to get themselves elected. Consequently, this gives those people a voice.

Don't get me wrong. I would love it if all the politicians came clean and told the homophobic racist woman-hating superstitious nut vote to go fuck themselves. I would also like the fallout when the Republican party loses all those votes. But it's not going to happen. Even if you are correct about a majority of USians wanting equal rights for homosexuals, which I am hesitant to believe.

Going to make up our arguments for us, rather than addressing what we said?

I suppose it's the only way you can make a pretence of success.

I already addressed what you said - you had no argument other than your assertion that politicians are always more special and have more rights than citizens, and if a citizen finds themselves in trouble, then they had it coming.

You never addressed me back.

I have links to back up my stuff - you haven't posted a single link.

That bolded part is a nicer way of saying what you're posting.

Apparently, the courts in the US are beginning to differ with you on this, and agree with the Founding Fathers.

1. Don't sue gunmakers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/22/AR2006052200820.html

2. Don't pass gun bans.



Link to the actual decision:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

None of that contradicts the responsibility of the government to decide if it is appropriate for the populace to be armed... as far as I can see.

The second amendment is very specific about the purpose of bearing arms. Any state that has national guard, has no necessity to have any other armed individuals.

None of that contradicts the responsibility of the government to decide if it is appropriate for the populace to be armed... as far as I can see.

The second amendment is very specific about the purpose of bearing arms. Any state that has national guard, has no necessity to have any other armed individuals.

The ruling is very specific that your idea of the second amendment is incorrect.

Maybe you should read the ruling.

The ruling says that it's an individual right. You lose.

Maybe you should look at the definition of the word, "People". Does it mean the same thing in the 1st Amendment as it does in the 2nd?

I already addressed what you said - you had no argument other than your assertion that politicians are always more special and have more rights than citizens, and if a citizen finds themselves in trouble, then they had it coming.

You never addressed me back.

I have links to back up my stuff - you haven't posted a single link.

That bolded part is a nicer way of saying what you're posting.

The bolded part is you talking out of your arse. I feel no need to defend random wank you post, pretending it is my argument. It's a strawman fallacy. Knock yourself out.

I'm wondering what you wanted linked... me telling you that I didn't say what you said I said? You want me to cite sources for that?

As for your turgid bollocky toss arguments about politicians being more 'special' or having 'more rights'... I didn't say either of those things. Again - I feel no need to defend myself against your imaginary arguments. Tilt at all the windmills you like. Just don't pretend it's some kind of 'thing' between us. There IS no 'us'... just you and your delusions.

The bolded part is you talking out of your arse. I feel no need to defend random wank you post, pretending it is my argument. It's a strawman fallacy. Knock yourself out.

I'm wondering what you wanted linked... me telling you that I didn't say what you said I said? You want me to cite sources for that?

As for your turgid bollocky toss arguments about politicians being more 'special' or having 'more rights'... I didn't say either of those things. Again - I feel no need to defend myself against your imaginary arguments. Tilt at all the windmills you like. Just don't pretend it's some kind of 'thing' between us. There IS no 'us'... just you and your delusions.

Yes, you and Bottle did say that. You said they had "extenuating circumstances" which no ordinary person would ever have.

You said that if an ordinary person thought they had those circumstances, they were either paranoid or hanging out in the wrong places.

That means "crazy" or "they had it coming".

Got it?

The ruling is very specific that your idea of the second amendment is incorrect.

Maybe you should read the ruling.

The ruling says that it's an individual right. You lose.

Maybe you should look at the definition of the word, "People". Does it mean the same thing in the 1st Amendment as it does in the 2nd?

Maybe you should look at the definition of the word "militia".

It amuses me that you seem to think that my idea is 'incorrect' because of one hearing in 2006. I'm sure you are aware that the matter is very unlikely to be left as is. Unless I'm much mistaken... you are presenting a circuit opinion, anyway...

Maybe you should look at the definition of the word "militia".

It amuses me that you seem to think that my idea is 'incorrect' because of one hearing in 2006. I'm sure you are aware that the matter is very unlikely to be left as is. Unless I'm much mistaken... you are presenting a circuit opinion, anyway...

Maybe you should read the opinion.

The appellate court denied the request for hearing. So it's going to the Supreme Court.

Considering the conservative makeup of the Court, it's more than likely to win.

Constitutional law scholars generally agree now that it's an individual right, not a collective right.

You're going to lose. Once it's enshrined by the Supreme Court, you would have to get rid of the Second Amendment in order to get anywhere with any laws.

Yes, you and Bottle did say that. You said they had "extenuating circumstances" which no ordinary person would ever have.

You said that if an ordinary person thought they had those circumstances, they were either paranoid or hanging out in the wrong places.

That means "crazy" or "they had it coming".

Got it?

No, neither Bottle nor I said the text you have attributed to us.

Show me where we did - show me the exact phrasing. I'll wait.

If you can't show that YOUR 'representation' of my opinion is DIRECTLY evidence in anything I've said - you are lying.

I did say politicians (I said 'rich' and 'powerful' people, actually, I believe - which includes but isn't limited to, politicians) have extenuating circumstances. I stand behind the idea that those extenuating circustances are unlikely to be factors in the everyday lives of most people.

Are you especially concerned that you will be assassinated?

If you think your risk of being specifically targetted is equal to that of - say - the President of the United States... then I also stand by the idea that are likely clinically paranoid.

Maybe you should read the opinion.

The appellate court denied the request for hearing. So it's going to the Supreme Court.

Considering the conservative makeup of the Court, it's more than likely to win.

Constitutional law scholars generally agree now that it's an individual right, not a collective right.

You're going to lose. Once it's enshrined by the Supreme Court, you would have to get rid of the Second Amendment in order to get anywhere with any laws.

By your own admission, if this gets by the Supreme Court (let's look at your wording: "Considering the conservative makeup of the Court, it's more than likely to win") it will be a matter of politics and partisanship. Nothing about the Constitutionality.

I wish you well with that. Personally, I wouldn't want my agenda furthered over the democratic rights of others because of croneyism. I'd rather have a non-partisan debate that ended in vindication.

I also don't think you understand the legal process nearly as well as you think you do, if you think that even a Supreme Court decision is unassailable.

No, neither Bottle nor I said the text you have attributed to us.

Show me where we did - show me the exact phrasing. I'll wait.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12864790&postcount=151

If someone wants to kill you, as a nobody, it is likely because of something you do... you shagged his wife... or maybe you were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Ah, I see. I had it coming, because I did something to provoke it, or went to a bad place.

If someone wants to kill you as a politician, it's because of who you are - your public recognition value.. maybe it's what makes you a target, or maybe just the famous face is enough for the assassin to call attention to x, y or z.

Ah, I see - so the politician should get protection.

If YOU, personally, live in such fear of your life that you feel the need for firearms (indeed, you seem to be arguing you need assault weapons, no less), then you are either involved in some bad shit (in which case, I have no real sympathy for your plight) or you are clinically paranoid (in which case, heaven forbid assault weapons ever should be in your hands).

Ah - bad shit - I had it coming again
Ah - clinically paranoid - crazy.

Pwned.

Nope. RO is lying, yet again. No surprise, really, just the usual pile of adorable dithering.

You just got owned.

She proposed eliminating all guns in an interview on 60 Minutes.

It's her goal, and she admits it.

I even posted a link - so it's not lying.

Here's the link to the "turn them all in" quote from her.

http://saf.org/pub/rkba/hindsight/hs980210.html

CBS "60 Minutes" segment for Feb. 5, 1995


Feinstein admitted that the gun and magazine ban had little practical value, that it was all symbolism and cosmetics. She told CBS' Leslie Stahl that she didn't have the votes to do anything more, much as she wanted to. She tried to blame the industry and gunowners, but she made a stunning admission for all the viewers to see, hear and record.

For the first time on network television, a flustered Feinstein admitted that her real agenda is to ban and confiscate all guns.

"If it were up to me," she told Stahl, "I would tell Mr. and Mrs. America to turn them in—turn them all in."

Feinstein said she would like to ban and remove all guns from American homes, she admitted in an almost tearful moment of defensiveness, but she said she just simply didn't have the votes for that in the Senate, or in even in the House.
__________________

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12864790&postcount=151

Ah, I see. I had it coming, because I did something to provoke it, or went to a bad place.

Ah, I see - so the politician should get protection.

Ah - bad shit - I had it coming again
Ah - clinically paranoid - crazy.

Pwned.

Yes, you were. Now show me how this relates to what you claim Bottle and I said.

I realise your entire argument here relies on deliberate obfuscation. I see you avoided any mention of words like 'likely' that might suggest probability. I notice you carefully don't acknowledge that a prominent voice really IS more likely to be specifically targetted for harm.

Of course you avoid such admissions. They show your argument to be without fruit.

And, of course, this is all still just a charade to distract attention away from the actual issue of debate. I can understand why you don't WANT to talk about corrupt politicians that you can't defend... but your little hijack is a disingenuous excuse.

Unless the politician is making a public spectacle of himself, what he does off the floor is really his business. That applies to Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Hetero and Homosexuals alike.

The problem is that his platform is on sexual morality.

I mean, it's like Bill Gates giving a talk on the values of mass diffused market competition.

Or Osama Bin Laden giving a speech on religious tolerance.

You just got owned.

She proposed eliminating all guns in an interview on 60 Minutes.

It's her goal, and she admits it.

I even posted a link - so it's not lying.

Here's the link to the "turn them all in" quote from her.

http://saf.org/pub/rkba/hindsight/hs980210.html

CBS "60 Minutes" segment for Feb. 5, 1995


__________________


I just have to point out... your editorial from a gun magazine SAYS that she wanted to ban all guns... but her quote in that magazine is neither specific nor clearly identifiable as to object. I wonder why they didn't choose the whole transcript, taking just a few contextless words.

Did you see the program?

Yes, you were. Now show me how this relates to what you claim Bottle and I said.

It relates to what you just said. Are you daft?

You are saying that politicians have the right to protection, and civilians do not.

Someone like Feinstein can own a gun when she feels the need for protection (and I linked that so don't say I didn't).

She says that she wants to round all of them up so we can't have any.
(and I linked that so don't say I didn't).

It's not obfuscation.

You believe in a world where politicians (like the Plato example) are free to do what they want, while the rest of us peons just have to avoid being in the wrong place at the wrong time. We're free to die in an unfortunate crime with no ability to defend ourselves, while the right to self-defense is inherent in being a leader.

You've said the words - now eat them.

And, of course, this is all still just a charade to distract attention away from the actual issue of debate. I can understand why you don't WANT to talk about corrupt politicians that you can't defend... but your little hijack is a disingenuous excuse.

If you read my posts, you would know that's not true.

I'm not defending the guy.

I've said I'm not defending the guy.

I'm saying that I'm tired of government and politicians trying to run my fucking life.

Ah, but you think it's ok for the government to run my life (and you've posted that, too).

I just have to point out... your editorial from a gun magazine SAYS that she wanted to ban all guns... but her quote in that magazine is neither specific nor clearly identifiable as to object. I wonder why they didn't choose the whole transcript, taking just a few contextless words.

Did you see the program?

Given the date, and the way its presented in her Wiki entry, it would appear to refer to "assault weapons" as covered under her failed bill of 1994/95.

You are saying that politicians have the right to protection, and civilians do not.


I didn't say that. This is, quite simply, a lie.


Someone like Feinstein can own a gun when she feels the need for protection (and I linked that so don't say I didn't).


You linked to nothing of the sort. You linked to her saying she USED TO (past tense, yes?) own a weapon as defence against a very specific threat... two separate terror attacks that deliberately targetted her family.


She says that she wants to round all of them up so we can't have any.
(and I linked that so don't say I didn't).


The source you linked is an editorial, not a transcript. I don't know what she said, and I doubt you do, either.


It's not obfuscation.


I rather think it is.


You believe in a world where politicians (like the Plato example) are free to do what they want, while the rest of us peons just have to avoid being in the wrong place at the wrong time.


I didn't say that, either. I call you a liar.


We're free to die in an unfortunate crime with no ability to defend ourselves, while the right to self-defense is inherent in being a leader.


More imaginary arguments.


You've said the words - now eat them.

That's the thing... you are trying to convict me with words you have uttered... not I.

Given the date, and the way its presented in her Wiki entry, it would appear to refer to "assault weapons" as covered under her failed bill of 1994/95.

I rather thought so too... otherwise, I suspect the gun magazine would have capitalised on such valuable ammunition, and cited the entire transcript.

I'm not sure which is worse... the dishonesty of the editorial team, or the complicity of those who perpetuate the myth.

I didn't say that. This is, quite simply, a lie.

No, it isn't. You said that civilians have no need for a weapon, and do not have the "extenuating circumstances" of a politician.



You linked to nothing of the sort. You linked to her saying she USED TO (past tense, yes?) own a weapon as defence against a very specific threat... two separate terror attacks that deliberately targetted her family.

I said she had owned a gun. Under "extenuating circumstances" which to you are justified - while to an ordinary citizen, you say that any excuse is either crazy or paranoia.

The source you linked is an editorial, not a transcript. I don't know what she said, and I doubt you do, either.

It's a fact she said it. It's been repeated many, many times, and she's proud of it.

That's the thing... you are trying to convict me with words you have uttered... not I.

You either believe that citizens have the right to self-defense by firearm, or you don't.

Which is it then? Or will you always back out of your assertions by saying, "I never said that"?

I rather thought so too... otherwise, I suspect the gun magazine would have capitalised on such valuable ammunition, and cited the entire transcript.

I'm not sure which is worse... the dishonesty of the editorial team, or the complicity of those who perpetuate the myth.

It's not a myth, I've seen the video.

The entire transcript is available on other sites.

Lesley Stahl (in studio): When you spend time at a
gun show, as we did last week, it's difficult to figure
out_why_the National Rifle Association is mounting such a
vigorous campaign to repeal the banning of assault
weapons. Maybe nobody told them, but assault weapons
are_still_for sale, no matter what the President's crime
bill decrees. They're being sold by the_thousands._ One
gun dealer in Louisville, Bill Perkins, even goes so far
as to call the ban "a joke." [cut to Bill Perkins' gun
store]
Bill Perkins: As far as the ban doing what it was
intended to do... it's silly. It's not doin' it. It's
not_gonna_do it.
Stahl [voiceover]: Perkins says that the minute it
looked like the ban would pass, people who
never_thought_about an assault weapon rushed out,
determined not to let the government tell them what
they_couldn't_have. And_bought_one. Or_two.._
Perkins: Clinton and that administration's been good
to the gun business.
Stahl [interviewing Perkins]: Clinton's been_good_to
the gun business.
Perkins: He's been... he's been one of the best
salespeople around. No doubt.
Stahl: Bill Clinton?
Perkins: Sure.
Stahl: When he signed the assault weapons ban, you're
saying that_that_act itself spurred the sort of...
Perkins: That act did_more_to put more firearms out
there on the streets...
[Reaction shot of Stahl looking dejected]
Perkins: ...as far as in the hands of citizens. He
accomplished what gun dealers have tried to accomplish
for years, and that is to get these sales_up._
Stahl: So it's like an_advertisement?_ Is that what
you're saying?
Perkins: That's_all_it was.
Stahl: But why would...
Perkins: It was the best advertising campaign you
could imagine!
[cut to Lesley Stahl at Miami Gun show]
Stahl: Advertising_so_good that it made 1994 the best
year for gun sales in a_generation,_ and the best year
for the sales of assault weapons ever. And yet, even
with that uprecedented_demand,_there is still an
enourmous_supply_of these so-called "banned" guns
available, and it's all legal. At this Miami gun show,
there are literally hundreds and hundreds of the AR-15,
like this [picks up AR-15 from display table], the TEC-9,
and all the others on the ban list. And this is
just_one_show in_one_city._
Stahl [voiceover]: Now, why are all these guns still
legal to sell? Because_they_were made_before_the law
took effect last September. The ban lists 19 guns that
can't be made or imported anymore. But those already in
circulation? They're fine. [cut to footage of President
Clinton's speech] So when President Clinton signed the
bill and said:
President Clinton: We will finally ban these assault
weapons from our streets that have no purpose other...
than.. to... _kill!_
Stahl [voiceover]: ...it was a good applause line,
but these "banned" weapons are still_everywhere,_on_the
streets, in gun shops, advertised in every gun
publication, and at gun shows all over the country. [cut
to Bob Smith at Miami gun show] Bob Smith is the
promoter of the Miami show.
Bob Smith: Right now, there is so much product on the
market it's actually overwhelming. The prices are
falling in some cases.
Stahl [interviewing Smith]: Would you call it
a_glut?_
Smith: In a way, yeah. Exactly.
Stahl: That is almost the opposite... I won't say
almost... that_is_the opposite of what was intended by
the ban.
Smith: It's had an opposite effect, absolutely.
Stahl: Can you_guess_how many of these assault
weapons are out there for sale right now? Are... are we
talking hundreds of thousands?
Smith: At_least_that many.
Stahl [voiceover]: Actually, the government estimates
that the_total_number in circulation is closer to
a_million_and_a_half._
[cut to Bob Perkins' gun shop]
Perkins: I presume that most of the distributors and
manufacturers saw this thing coming. It's sort of like
playing the stock market. You're taking a_bet_whether...
"will they be banned or will they not be banned." And if
you hedge your bets by, you know, stockpiling these
things, gettin' them in the warehouse, gettin' 'em
manufactured, gettin' 'em stamped_before_the enactment of
the bill and if they_are_in fact banned, then you're
gonna come out on top.
Stahl: And some did that?
Perkins: Sure they did.
Stahl [voiceover, footage of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-
CA) at podium, holding up an AK-47]: California Senator
Dianne Feinstein worked for more than a year to get the
assault weapons bill passed, in the face of ferocious
opposition from the National Rifle Association. She says
she got the_best_she could. [cut to Sen. Dianne
Feinstein's office]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein: If I could have gotten 51
votes in the Senate of the United States for
an_out_right_ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr.
and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it.
I_could_not do that. The votes weren't here.
Stahl [interviewing Feinstein]: But are you worried
that it got watered down so much that it's lost
its_real_effectiveness?
Feinstein: Let me... let me tell you, there is
a_very_potent part of this legislation and it is the ban
on the maufacture and sale of clips of more than ten
bullets.
Stahl [voiceover, footage of gun show display table
piled high with high-capacity magazines]: But just as
with the guns, it's not so potent after all, because all
magazines or clips manufactured before last September are
perfectly legal to own, buy, and sell, no matter how many
bullets they hold. Ten... 20... 30... _50._ And there
are_mountains_of them out there.
Unidentified Magazine Dealer: So I might have what's
on this table, there may be... hundreds of thousands of
more mags just like 'em that are still pre-ban date.
Stahl [interviewing dealer]: So if I wanted to buy a
gun with 30 rounds, or 50, or 20, I wouldn't have any
trouble?
Dealer: Not at all.
Stahl: How?
Dealer: It's not against the law.
Stahl: Because these were made before.
Dealer: Right.
Stahl: But is there just an endless supply of these
mags with more than ten rounds?
Dealer: Actually,_yes._
Stahl [voiceover]: To make sure that supply remains
endless, some gun distributors have come up with a
creative strategy. They're trying to get old pre-ban
magazines back from_cops_to be resold to the public,
because the law applies to_all_magazines, including those
for pistols. [cut to photo of gun-swap flyer] The flyer
sent to police chiefs offers to make an even swap: brand
new pistols and magazines in exchange for the police
departments' used ones.
[cut to Louisville, KY police chief Doug Hamilton's
office]
Doug Hamilton: At first, of course, it seems to
violate the first law of fraud, you know "if it sounds
too good to be true, it probably is"... (laughs)
Stahl [voiceover]: Doug Hamilton is the police chief
in Louisville, Kentucky. He got the swap offer from his
local distributor, Kiesler Police Supply.
Stahl [interviewing Hamilton]: They were trying to
get around this_ban_because they could sell_your_gun...
Hamilton: They could sell our weapon...
Stahl: ...with the 15 rounds...
Hamilton: ...and they could sell our magazine, out on
the street, retail over the counter, and it was strictly,
like I say, legal.
Stahl [voiceover, footage of police on indoor firing
range]: Legal because the law says that new magazines
that hold more than ten bullets can be made_only_if
they're sold to law enforcement, while the others can be
sold to anyone. That's why gun dealers are so eager to
get the old 15, 17 or 20 round clips back from the
police.
Stahl [interviewing Hamilton, handing him a double-
stack pistol mag]: And this is what the manufacturer
(sic) wants when he offers you a swap. This is the
thing.
Hamilton: In the final analysis, that was the thing
in Louisville, Kentucky that was wanted by the
distributor... was our magazines. 2,100 of 'em.
Stahl [voiceover, exterior of Kiesler Police Supply]:
The owner of Kiesler Police Supply wouldn't talk to us on
camera, but defended the offer as a simple and legal
business deal. [cut to photo of ad in gun magazine]
Several police departments have taken them up on it, and
police trade-ins are_already_on gun shop shelves.
Hamilton: I thought for us to participate in it,
would be a violation of the spirit of the law.
Stahl [interviewing Hamilton]: But what about for
them to make the offer?
Hamilton: I think that they're just exploiting a
loophole.
Stahl: The obvious question is... there... the
police gun that gets traded,_could_turn around and be
sold to someone who goes out and shoots a policeman.
Hamilton: Sure. There's no doubt about that, there's
no doubt about that. That's the worst case scenario and
the greatest fear.
[cut to Sen. Diane Feinstein's office]
Feinstein: Does this violate the spirit and intent of
the law? _Absolutely._ Should they be doing this? _No._
And, I think it does say that there are craven interests
out there who simply wanna use this legislation to
profiteer wherever they possibly can, and I can assure
you if I can figure a way to stop it, I'll try to do
that.
Stahl [voiceover]: Senator Feinstein thought she had
figured out a way to stop another problem. She wrote
something called a "physical features" test into the law,
designed to keep gun makers from turning their banned
guns into legal ones by making just a few minor changes.
The law bans any new gun that has two or more of the
these military-style features: [closeup of hand pointing
out features on gun show table] a pistol grip, a folding
stock, a bayonet mount, a flash supressor, or a grenade
launcher.
Feinstein: It also, in its physical features test, is
aimed at copycats, and one of the things that we found
was if you just_ban_19 specific weapons, suddenly
the_name_changes, and instead of an AK-47 you have a
Mitchell this, or a Norinco that. And to a great extent
we get at this.
Stahl [voiceover, footage of Norinco MAK-90 rifle]:
But once agian, the ban has backfired. Five months after
it took effect, the copycats are_already_out. [cut to
photo graphics] This is the TEC-22, banned by the
assault weapons bill. This is the new Sport 22 from the
same manufacturer. The only difference? The new gun has
no threads on the barrel. [return to footage of the MAK-
90] The ban_specifically_outlaws the AK-47, but it
doesn't do anything about the_M_AK-90.
Stahl [interviewing unidentified dealer at Miami gun
show about the MAK-90]: Isn't this exactly the same gun
as the AK-47?
Dealer: It's very similar.
Stahl: What's different? Can you show me?
Dealer: It's got a thumbhole stock, which is
necessary for importation, and it does not have a
bayonet.
Stahl [pointing]: No bayonet, which would have gone
here...
Dealer [pointing]: Which would have gone here.
Stahl: And, it's just a different grip, really...
Dealer: Exactly.
[cut to Bill Perkins' gun shop]
Perkins: One of the most ludicrous things I think
that I'm aware of is banning the bayonets on the end of a
rifle...
[reaction shot of Stahl nodding]
Perkins: That's a knife blade. Why ban that in the
first place? You mean, if someone walks in with, you
know, one of these alias assault-type weapons, and it has
a blade, you're going to look to see if it has a knife
before you get scared? I mean, it doesn't make any
sense!
Stahl [voiceover, footage of Colt assembly line]:
People in the gun business say Congress asked for what's
happening by writing a_cosmetics_law, focusing on how
guns_look_rather than how they shoot. Colt, based in
Connecticut, is one of America's oldest gunmakers. Ron
Whittaker is president. [cut to Ron Whittaker's office]
Ron Whittaker: We had a crime bill that was supposed
to focus on crime, and hopefully, criminals. We end up
with an assault weapons ban that has nothing to do with
defining assault weapons, but it had a lot to do with
what something looks like.
Stahl [voiceover, footage of Colt AR-15 Sporter]: No
question, Colt's Sporter rifle looks menacing. It failed
the features test because it has both a pistol grip, and
a flash supressor on the end of the barrel. [cut to
photo of Colt Match Target brochure] They can't legally
make it anymore. So now they make the Match Target. Can
you tell the difference? No flash supressor on the
end...
[cut to Sen. Dianne Feinstein's office]
Stahl [showing Colt brochure to Feinstein]: And now,
it will be legally sold, with a new name, and this tiny
little feature on the end removed.
Feinstein: Well, that's true.
Stahl: Well, what is your reaction whenI tell you
this? Are you... I mean, you wrote this legislation
in_such_good faith, and both you and all the other
people, the police chiefs...
Feinstein: My reaction is that there is a
very_craven_set of people out there who are going to
essentially traffic in these arms if they can, one way or
another.
[cut to Colt president Whittaker's office]
Stahl [interviewing Whittaker]: The charge is, that
you are basically taking advantage of a loophole in the
law, basically subverting the spirit of what Congress
intended, which was to get this gun off the streets. So,
what's your answer to that?
Whittaker: Well, that's flat out not true. They
passed a cosmetic law, and now they're sitting back
saying "oh, woe is me... people are changing the
cosmetics!" I don't understand that logic!
Stahl [voiceover]: Whether he understands the logic
or not, the law doesn't seem to be working. Take the
TEC-9, made by Intratec of Miami. It has shown up
several times on the government's top ten list of guns
used in crime. It's small and easily concealable, and
comes standard with a 32 bullet clip. It's banned by
name in the assault weapons law.
[cut to Bill Perkins' gun shop]
Perkins: Not exactly known to be well made... but
since the ban, all the sudden it's become quite
desirable. Now it's the... mysterious item that
everybody wants to come look at and buy...
Stahl [interviewing Perkins]: Because it's banned.
Perkins: ...because it's banned. Exactly.
Stahl [voiceover, footage of trade show]: It'll be a
long time before gun dealers run out of old TEC-9s, but
when they do, Intratec is ready. They're displaying a
new, slightly altered version that they're calling the
AB-10.
[cut to Sen. Feinstein's office]
Stahl [interviewing Feinstein]: Do you have any idea
what AB stands for?
Feinstein: No... no...
Stahl: After ban. And they're selling it with the
old clip... [of] 32 rounds, they're actually_selling_the
new gun with the 32 round...
Feinstein: ...with the 32 round...
Stahl: ...that was manufactured before.
Feinstein: Well... ah... I'll take a good look at
that. If their attitude is just to thumb their nose at
67% of the American people who are supporting something
with a view that it's gonna get these guns off the
street... If they're gonna violate that, then Congress
needs to see that.
Stahl: But would you admit that because of the
composition of the new Congress, that it's unlikely that
you're going to get any_more_gun control laws passed, in
_this_Congress.
Feinstein: Oh, I think that's true. In this
Congress.
Stahl: So no going forward?
Feinstein: I think that's true.

Googled "Diane Feinstein gun", got this from the first link:

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein unveiled a gun control proposal that would require federally approved licensing of all owners of handguns and certain semi-automatic weapons. Feinstein said her plan is intended to keep handguns and semi-automatic firearms away from “criminals, people with mental disabilities, and children.”"

Unless you are asserting that we are all children, mentally disabled, or criminals, it appears that Sen. Feinstein does not, in fact, want to prevent "us" from having guns.

She also voted NO on the Hatch amendment, which was for increasing mandatory penalties for the illegal transfer or use of firearms, funding additional drug case prosecutors, and requiring background check on purchasers at gun shows. (In other words, a YES vote would have supported stronger penalties.)

She is the one that (as mayor) pushed through the ordinance that banned handguns in San Fransisco, she was one of the authors of the 1994 AWB, she's been quoted as saying, "Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.", and she was also once quoted on 60 Minutes as saying, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it.".

She does not want ordinary citizens to have the right to keep and bear arms.

The entire transcript is available on other sites.

.

Yep. Seems to be talking about assault weapons.

Hi, everyone! Sorry I'm late. Okay, let me get caught up on our story so far:

1) The Vitters story = JOY!!! :D:D

I cannot tell you how happy it makes me to see this sort of thing happen to people I despise. Aw, poor widdems Mr. Vitters, did'ums get caught with his widdems pants down and his dick in his hand -- again -- that two-faced, back-stabbing, pandering, hypocritical, lying ass-wipe? Couldn't have happened to a better guy. I hope the media can keep this scandal going. I enjoy slow-roasted pig.

2) Beyond the pure fun of it (for me), there's also the reason why it matters. Many thanks to Bottle for that list of exposed Republican hypocrisies so far, and to others for pointing out what I'm about to repeat:

It does not matter if he is an adulterer, or a liar, or even a hypocrite. What matters is that he has based his political career and public image on attempts to DENY LEGAL RIGHTS TO OTHER CITIZENS ON "MORALS" GROUNDS. He reserves to himself the right to be a filthy little pig-slut, while trying to pass laws that would deny the protections of marriage to others because they go for a kind of sex he isn't into. Because his career is about attempting to DENY LEGAL RIGHTS TO CITIZENS ON "MORALS" GROUNDS, his lack of morals is a fit weapon with which to take him down. At the very least, it should be used to make his life a living hell -- hung around his neck like an albatross. Let him pay the price for his hypocrisy here, now, where we can see it and learn from it.

To refer to his precious Bible, let him stand as an object lesson of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." He thinks marriage is so sacred that those who don't adhere to his church's rules for it should be banned from having it, then he should be banned from being married himself.

3) As usual, unable to defend Mr. Vitters or his party, the NSG rightwing-men swoop in with irrelevancies, strawmen, slanders, and total thread hijacks. Shame on all who are enabling ROKimchi in his ridiculous efforts to abandon the Vitters story altogether and turn this into a war over Nancy Pelosi -- or Diane Feinstein -- or whoever the hell he's talking about who isn't connected in anyway to the topic at hand. It's especially annoying because it added at least 4 unnecessary pages to the thread that I had to skip over.

Yep. Seems to be talking about assault weapons.

Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe. - Dianne Feinstein

Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe. - Dianne Feinstein

Indeed. So where is my nuke ?

All... what? Assault weapons?

You're bitching and whining because you can't have a machine gun?

Poor you. However can you defend yourself, or hunt a possum without armour piercing rounds...

Assault weapon <> machine gun. An "assault weapon" is a semi-automatic firearm, whereas a machine gun is full-automatic.

Also, possums are probably only hunted with .22 rimfire cartridges (otherwise, there'd be nothing left of the possum after impact). Finally, most centerfire rifle cartridges will pierce body armor (unless the hard trauma plates are in the vest).

She is the one that (as mayor) pushed through the ordinance that banned handguns in San Fransisco, she was one of the authors of the 1994 AWB, she's been quoted as saying, "Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.", and she was also once quoted on 60 Minutes as saying, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it.".

She does not want ordinary citizens to have the right to keep and bear arms.

Now, do you have a source?

Now, do you have a source?

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/diannefein175407.html

Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe. - Dianne Feinstein

Not what she was on about in that transcript you posted though. Like the way you switched from talking about your "swinging" when nobody expressed interest to a gun control rant, just to derail the thread.

And another source for the banning all guns quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein#Gun_politics

It's Wikipedia...

And it's not in any contention, so Grave can stop saying it's a myth that she said it...

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

Not what she was on about in that transcript you posted though. Like the way you switched from talking about your "swinging" when nobody expressed interest to a gun control rant, just to derail the thread.

I'm not switching.

That's a separate quote, to show her consistency on this.

She also voted against the Vitter amendment, which guarantees that the government won't round up your guns in a time of crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitter_Amendment

She doesn't think that we should have guns, even under extenuating circumstances.

Pretty consistent.

Assault weapon <> machine gun. An "assault weapon" is a semi-automatic firearm, whereas a machine gun is full-automatic.

Also, possums are probably only hunted with .22 rimfire cartridges (otherwise, there'd be nothing left of the possum after impact). Finally, most centerfire rifle cartridges will pierce body armor (unless the hard trauma plates are in the vest).

I think we can safely assume that most citizens of the USA wish to own a gun to be able to "defend" themselves from other humans and not for hunting. Considering the constitution seems to imply that they are allowed to bear arms to defend themselves from an oppressive government, allowing machineguns would definately make sense.

As does the nuke I requested. And yet that is not allowed.

Where exactly do people draw the line, and *why* do they draw the line there ? What is the consistent reasoning ?

I'm not switching.

That's a separate quote, to show her consistency on this.

She also voted against the Vitter amendment, which guarantees that the government won't round up your guns in a time of crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitter_Amendment

She doesn't think that we should have guns, even under extenuating circumstances.

Pretty consistent.
Hahaha, I can't believe you actually mentioned Vitter in this totally off-topic post. Are you attempting to make it seem as if you're not hijacking the thread, or did you forget what the topic was and not even realize the Vitter connection?

Well, whatever. Thanks for reminding us that this thread is about VITTER and his failings.

EDIT: Look, this is ridiculous. If people want to discuss gun control, they should start a new thread. I'm going out for a while. When I come back, I hope this thread will either be back on topic or locked. I'm sick of this pathetic tactic of people changing an argument they cannot otherwise win.

None of that contradicts the responsibility of the government to decide if it is appropriate for the populace to be armed... as far as I can see.

The second amendment is very specific about the purpose of bearing arms. Any state that has national guard, has no necessity to have any other armed individuals.

The US DOJ has already stated that the 2nd amendment is a individual's right, not a state's (or militia's) right.

Hahaha, I can't believe you actually mentioned Vitter in this totally off-topic post. Are you attempting to make it seem as if you're not hijacking the thread, or did you forget what the topic was and not even realize the Vitter connection?

Well, whatever. Thanks for reminding us that this thread is about VITTER and his failings.

You know, I would appreciate it if the gun folks would take that conversation into its own thread. It certainly doesn't belong in this one.

Hahaha, I can't believe you actually mentioned Vitter in this totally off-topic post. Are you attempting to make it seem as if you're not hijacking the thread, or did you forget what the topic was and not even realize the Vitter connection?

Well, whatever. Thanks for reminding us that this thread is about VITTER and his failings.

Ah, I get no credit for irony here. And you were the only one who noticed.

How is the passage of the Vitter Amendment a "failing".

It's a good law. He may be an idiot, but it's a good law.

How is the passage of the Vitter Amendment a "failing".
It's a good law. He may be an idiot, but it's a good law.

Remember me next time when there is something inside your body you do not wish to be there to prevent you from removing it.

You know, I would appreciate it if the gun folks would take that conversation into its own thread. It certainly doesn't belong in this one.

originally posted by me
EDIT: Look, this is ridiculous. If people want to discuss gun control, they should start a new thread. I'm going out for a while. When I come back, I hope this thread will either be back on topic or locked. I'm sick of this pathetic tactic of people changing an argument they cannot otherwise win.

And please, people (hard look at GnI), stop enabling the hijackers.

Ah, I get no credit for irony here. And you were the only one who noticed.

I noticed it as a hilarious failure in your pathetic, squirming attempt to avoid by deflection getting beaten up with your own party's ethical bankruptcy. You get no credit from me for anything.

Get on topic or get your own thread.

You know, I would appreciate it if the gun folks would take that conversation into its own thread. It certainly doesn't belong in this one.

If you read my original point on political hypocrisy, you would see that it does.

But people want to argue the minutiae of it, rather than the idea that politicians want to fuck with our lives and do whatever they please.

How is the passage of the Vitter Amendment a "failing".

It's a good law. He may be an idiot, but it's a good law.
Off topic. Therefore, it should not be responded to in this thread.

I noticed it as a hilarious failure in your pathetic, squirming attempt to avoid by deflection getting beaten up with your own party's ethical bankruptcy. You get no credit from me for anything.

Get on topic or get your own thread.

I have thus proven that you haven't read any of my posts.

I haven't been defending him.

Nor have I been trying to deflect anything.

Try again.

Now, do you have a source?

http://www.answers.com/topic/dianne-feinstein

Under the title, Mayor in Her Own Right, in the second paragraph.

http://senate.gov/~feinstein/assault_weapons_ban.html

Starts at the first paragraph.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/dianne_feinstein.html

Second quote.

I'm still looking for a link to the last Feinstein quote (from a source ya'll would accept), so I'll get back to you on that.

Indeed. So where is my nuke ?

:rolleyes:

Nukes <> firearms.

http://www.answers.com/topic/dianne-feinstein

Under the title, Mayor in Her Own Right, in the second paragraph.

http://senate.gov/~feinstein/assault_weapons_ban.html

Starts at the first paragraph.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/dianne_feinstein.html

Second quote.

I'm still looking for a link to the last Feinstein quote (from a source ya'll would accept), so I'll get back to you on that.

Excellent, so nice to have someone who will back up their assertions!

I think we can safely assume that most citizens of the USA wish to own a gun to be able to "defend" themselves from other humans and not for hunting. Considering the constitution seems to imply that they are allowed to bear arms to defend themselves from an oppressive government, allowing machineguns would definately make sense.

As does the nuke I requested. And yet that is not allowed.

Where exactly do people draw the line, and *why* do they draw the line there ? What is the consistent reasoning ?

I wish to own firearms to put little round holes in paper targets, from hundreds of feet/yards away. It's a fun sport (especially when I school my roommate at the range, even though he has more firearms experience than me). However, there's a significant number of hunters in the US as well (NSSF, or the National Shooting Sports Foundation, estimates that there are 20.6 million active hunters in the United States).

http://www.nssf.org/IndustryResearch/FAQ-ans.cfm?Qno=02&AoI=generic

As far as a nuke, its damage can't be contained to just the targets you'd want, there'd be far too much collateral damage (that, and if you were to set it off, I doubt you'd be able to run away fast enough to avoid getting caught in the blast ;)).

Excellent, so nice to have someone who will back up their assertions!

You'll notice that I provided secondary links to Wikipedia later in the thread, so all of mine are backed up as well.

Of course, you didn't bother to read it...

The entire transcript is available on other sites.


And it clearly shows her to be making the comment in reference to 'assault weapons'.

You fail.

No, it isn't. You said that civilians have no need for a weapon, and do not have the "extenuating circumstances" of a politician.

I said she had owned a gun. Under "extenuating circumstances" which to you are justified - while to an ordinary citizen, you say that any excuse is either crazy or paranoia.

It's a fact she said it. It's been repeated many, many times, and she's proud of it.

You either believe that citizens have the right to self-defense by firearm, or you don't.

Which is it then? Or will you always back out of your assertions by saying, "I never said that"?

I told you. You posted things I didn't say, and attributed them to me.

The fact that you insisted they are my words means that you lied.

I feel no need to defend myself against (or even address any more, to be honest) your lies.

Hi, everyone! Sorry I'm late. Okay, let me get caught up on our story so far:

1) The Vitters story = JOY!!! :D:D

I cannot tell you how happy it makes me to see this sort of thing happen to people I despise. Aw, poor widdems Mr. Vitters, did'ums get caught with his widdems pants down and his dick in his hand -- again -- that two-faced, back-stabbing, pandering, hypocritical, lying ass-wipe? Couldn't have happened to a better guy. I hope the media can keep this scandal going. I enjoy slow-roasted pig.

2) Beyond the pure fun of it (for me), there's also the reason why it matters. Many thanks to Bottle for that list of exposed Republican hypocrisies so far, and to others for pointing out what I'm about to repeat:

It does not matter if he is an adulterer, or a liar, or even a hypocrite. What matters is that he has based his political career and public image on attempts to DENY LEGAL RIGHTS TO OTHER CITIZENS ON "MORALS" GROUNDS. He reserves to himself the right to be a filthy little pig-slut, while trying to pass laws that would deny the protections of marriage to others because they go for a kind of sex he isn't into. Because his career is about attempting to DENY LEGAL RIGHTS TO CITIZENS ON "MORALS" GROUNDS, his lack of morals is a fit weapon with which to take him down. At the very least, it should be used to make his life a living hell -- hung around his neck like an albatross. Let him pay the price for his hypocrisy here, now, where we can see it and learn from it.

To refer to his precious Bible, let him stand as an object lesson of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." He thinks marriage is so sacred that those who don't adhere to his church's rules for it should be banned from having it, then he should be banned from being married himself.

3) As usual, unable to defend Mr. Vitters or his party, the NSG rightwing-men swoop in with irrelevancies, strawmen, slanders, and total thread hijacks. Shame on all who are enabling ROKimchi in his ridiculous efforts to abandon the Vitters story altogether and turn this into a war over Nancy Pelosi -- or Diane Feinstein -- or whoever the hell he's talking about who isn't connected in anyway to the topic at hand. It's especially annoying because it added at least 4 unnecessary pages to the thread that I had to skip over.

Quoted for many truth.

Assault weapon <> machine gun. An "assault weapon" is a semi-automatic firearm, whereas a machine gun is full-automatic.

Also, possums are probably only hunted with .22 rimfire cartridges (otherwise, there'd be nothing left of the possum after impact). Finally, most centerfire rifle cartridges will pierce body armor (unless the hard trauma plates are in the vest).

Sarcasm, meet Gun manufacturers. Gun Manufacturers, this is sarcasm.

awesome. The dittoheads took til page 10 for it to finally sink in that they can't possibly defend this hypocritical a-hole.
So what do they do?
Do they apologise for wasting everyone's time, show themselves to be big, honourable people by admitting they were wrong and thank others for helping them?
of course not.
They desperately - nay, pathetically - attempt to twist this around to attacking the Dems on a completely different and in no-way-whatsoever connected topic, using their favourite wetdream Teddy Kennedy.
Well done, sirs, on showing the world just how narrow-minded, intolerant and close-minded you truly are. I'd salute you, but...well...I, uh, won't.

Speaking of Teddy, I think he's practically a Godwin - any time his name is used by a neocon in any thread that 's not specifically about him, it shows they've lost the original argument but refuse to admit it. Thus they resort to attacking Teddy in some vain, pitiful attempt to make themselves still feel like they've 'won'.

I'd just like to know why when a Democrat is caught with his pants down it is "just sex" and "his own personal business", but when a Republican does it he should be strung up and whipped in the full view of the public with a cat o' nine tails.

A little consistency. Is it too much to ask?

I'd just like to know why when a Democrat is caught with his pants down it is "just sex" and "his own personal business", but when a Republican does it he should be strung up and whipped in the full view of the public with a cat o' nine tails.

A little consistency. Is it too much to ask?

Please read the thread ... it is painfully apparent that it was not about what he was doing in his own personal business but rather they hypocracy of his private live as opposed to his public stance


If he had not been supporting this "defense of marriage" bullshit this would have been a non story as most of the hypocracy would not be present

If any of those democrats you talked about had supported that POS "defense of marriage" and had an affair they too deserve to be lambasted for hypocricy

Please read the thread ... it is painfully apparent that it was not about what he was doing in his own personal business but rather they hypocracy of his private live as opposed to his public stance


If he had not been supporting this "defense of marriage" bullshit this would have been a non story as most of the hypocracy would not be present

If any of those democrats you talked about had supported that POS "defense of marriage" and had an affair they too deserve to be lambasted for hypocricy

Holy sh*t. We are in agreement. I, too, believe that all elected officials should be judged equally. The sad truth, however, is that very often this is not the case. If this were a Democrat we are discussing we would not be talking about any inconsistencies in any public versus private moral stance. It would simply be a non-issue. His visiting a prostitute would simply be his private life and not open for discussion or have any relevance whatsoever to his public persona or how he does his job.

And it's spelled hypocrisy. Thanks for playing.

Sarcasm, meet Gun manufacturers. Gun Manufacturers, this is sarcasm.

Over an internet forum, it's sometimes hard to tell what's sarcasm and what's not.

Holy sh*t. We are in agreement. I, too, believe that all elected officials should be judged equally. The sad truth, however, is that very often this is not the case. If this were a Democrat we are discussing we would not be talking about any inconsistencies in any public versus private moral stance. It would simply be a non-issue. His visiting a prostitute would simply be his private life and not open for discussion or have any relevance whatsoever to his public persona or how he does his job.
Wrong again. If there's a Democrat in those lists--and frankly, I expect there will be at least one--and said Democrat has made a big deal of his commitment to the sanctity of marriage, etc., then you can bet your ass I'll be calling him out here as well. If, however, said Dem has not made a career out of calling for public morality, then it will certainly not make as large a difference. Same for any Republican in the same boat. The key is how said politician positions himself in the public eye--a staunch defender of sexual morality or a person who doesn't really make a big deal of it.

Holy sh*t. We are in agreement. I, too, believe that all elected officials should be judged equally. The sad truth, however, is that very often this is not the case. If this were a Democrat we are discussing we would not be talking about any inconsistencies in any public versus private moral stance. It would simply be a non-issue. His visiting a prostitute would simply be his private life and not open for discussion or have any relevance whatsoever to his public persona or how he does his job.


Nope, not if backed some 'pro-family' crap.

Holy sh*t. We are in agreement. I, too, believe that all elected officials should be judged equally. The sad truth, however, is that very often this is not the case. If this were a Democrat we are discussing we would not be talking about any inconsistencies in any public versus private moral stance. It would simply be a non-issue. His visiting a prostitute would simply be his private life and not open for discussion or have any relevance whatsoever to his public persona or how he does his job.

And it's spelled hypocrisy. Thanks for playing.
of course. That's why there was so little mention made in the media or by GOP politicos about Clinton's affairs when he was in office.

I have thus proven that you haven't read any of my posts.

I haven't been defending him.

Nor have I been trying to deflect anything.

Try again.
You're the one who can't -- just doesn't -- read.

I did not say you were defending anything. I said you can't win this argument, which is hardly a controversial remark, considering your track record in NSG.

And I said you were changing the subject, which is a deflection tactic.

Try again.

But please note, trying to make this an argument about the form or style of your argument or about my reading level would be just another deflection, i.e. off topic.

I'd just like to know why when a Democrat is caught with his pants down it is "just sex" and "his own personal business", but when a Republican does it he should be strung up and whipped in the full view of the public with a cat o' nine tails.

A little consistency. Is it too much to ask?
Originally posted by me (since apparently, you can't be bothered to read the thread):

...2) Beyond the pure fun of it (for me), there's also the reason why it matters. Many thanks to Bottle for that list of exposed Republican hypocrisies so far, and to others for pointing out what I'm about to repeat:

It does not matter if he is an adulterer, or a liar, or even a hypocrite. What matters is that he has based his political career and public image on attempts to DENY LEGAL RIGHTS TO OTHER CITIZENS ON "MORALS" GROUNDS. He reserves to himself the right to be a filthy little pig-slut, while trying to pass laws that would deny the protections of marriage to others because they go for a kind of sex he isn't into. Because his career is about attempting to DENY LEGAL RIGHTS TO CITIZENS ON "MORALS" GROUNDS, his lack of morals is a fit weapon with which to take him down. At the very least, it should be used to make his life a living hell -- hung around his neck like an albatross. Let him pay the price for his hypocrisy here, now, where we can see it and learn from it.

To refer to his precious Bible, let him stand as an object lesson of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." He thinks marriage is so sacred that those who don't adhere to his church's rules for it should be banned from having it, then he should be banned from being married himself. ...

The words in solid caps are the ones that matter most. Let any politician of any party do what Vitters has done, and I will denounce him as well.

In fact, I'll even be more generous than my fellows on this side of the argument (you know, the right one ;)). I'll even allow a politician to get elected on a platform of "family values", "national virtue" bullshit rhetoric, while at the same time banging everything with a hole that can't run faster than him, AS LONG AS HE DOES NOT ACTUALLY TRY TO PASS LEGISLATION TO RESTRICT THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF OTHERS ON "MORALS" GROUNDS. Let him be as outrageous a liar and hypocrite as he likes and his constituency can stomach, but if he actually takes action that would hurt the civil rights of my fellow citizens, then he will be in for a fight from me.

And I don't give a rat's ass what party he belongs to.

Originally posted by me (since apparently, you can't be bothered to read the thread):



The words in solid caps are the ones that matter most. Let any politician of any party do what Vitters has done, and I will denounce him as well.

In fact, I'll even be more generous than my fellows on this side of the argument (you know, the right one ;)). I'll even allow a politician to get elected on a platform of "family values", "national virtue" bullshit rhetoric, while at the same time banging everything with a hole that can't run faster than him, AS LONG AS HE DOES NOT ACTUALLY TRY TO PASS LEGISLATION TO RESTRICT THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF OTHERS ON "MORALS" GROUNDS. Let him be as outrageous a liar and hypocrite as he likes and his constituency can stomach, but if he actually takes action that would hurt the civil rights of my fellow citizens, then he will be in for a fight from me.

And I don't give a rat's ass what party he belongs to.
I think most of us in this thread have said as much, many times over. Shall I pretend to be surprised that our clear words fall on deaf ears?

I think most of us in this thread have said as much, many times over. Shall I pretend to be surprised that our clear words fall on deaf ears?

Yes, let's both pretend. It'll be fun. *looks surprised*

Well with Arabs he seems to want to fill them full of holes, more often than not.....
Think how confused poor RO must get when he sees a hot Arab woman?
RO thoughts:
"Wow, she's hot! But wait she's an Arab! But she's hot! But she's an Arab!
"I want fill her holes!
"No, I want to fill her with holes!
"No, fill her holes!
"fill her with holes!
"fill her holes!
"fill her with holes!
*head implodes*
...
"I'm a little teapot short and stout, here is my handle, here is my spout..."