elelle
July 12, 2007, 1:52am
61
I vaguely recall reading an interview with a prostitute in New York when the Pubbies were holding their convention there, and the prostitute was saying that prostitutes generally preferred Republican conventions because the Dems had sex with each other, the Pubbies preferred to buy from pros. Sounds like she might have been right.
That says a lot. As a discerning member of the femme population, ya couldn’t pay me enough to esconce anything with those guys. But, market bears, ahh, hell, it’s really a nasty image, isn’t it? Throwing money at everything, even human closeness. Pretty Jizzwhacked and sad.
Agreed. Of course, the same goes for Democrats, cough James Traficant cough , or of course, Senator Harrison A. Williams (D-NJ), John Jenrette (D-NJ), Raymond Lederer (D-PA), Michael Myers (D-PA), Frank Thompson (D-NJ), or Senator Robert Torricelli (D-NJ)!
So, which of these made a career of being holier than thou? Good old Edwin hardly built his career on moral probity - he built it on not being caught.
You are obviously too Pubbie blind to see the difference between just doing something wrong and doing something wrong right after you proclaimed your moral rectitude. Hypocrites are clearly your favorite people. Kind of like someone saying he’ll bring us together while forcing anyone who won’t kiss his ass to not even be allowed to speak without being called a traitor.
You are a piece of shit, aren’t you?
No surprise there.
What I do not get ,is these political guys get women thrown at them all the time. It goes with the job. I am never surprised when pols get caught with women. The kind of personality seeking office is aggressive and conquering. So many presidents had sex on the side. Kennedy, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Clinton, etc. The list goes on. I still find the gay ones interesting though. Huge hypocrisy. But does it hurt the job performance . ?Should we mind our own business.?
I say we should mind our own business, but only if they mind their own business.
If a politician wants to legislate morality, then we should feel free to examine their business if they don’t follow their own alleged principles.
gonzomax:
Kennedy, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Clinton, etc.
Okay, Kennedy and Clinton we pretty much know about, and I’ve heard the odd thing about Eisenhower (though I still find it a little hard to believe), but Roosevelt? The guy in a wheelchair got some outside the WH?
gonzomax:
What I do not get ,is these political guys get women thrown at them all the time. It goes with the job. I am never surprised when pols get caught with women. The kind of personality seeking office is aggressive and conquering. So many presidents had sex on the side. Kennedy, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Clinton, etc. The list goes on. I still find the gay ones interesting though. Huge hypocrisy. But does it hurt the job performance . ?Should we mind our own business.?
I think we should mind our own business. Government officials and the public should stay out of each other’s bedrooms and private lives. Them first.
Maybe he’s taking after Amy Winehouse :
*They’re tryin to make me go to rehab
Okay, Kennedy and Clinton we pretty much know about, and I’ve heard the odd thing about Eisenhower (though I still find it a little hard to believe), but Roosevelt? The guy in a wheelchair got some outside the WH?
Teddy Roosevelt, perhaps?
Waenara:
I say we should mind our own business, but only if they mind their own business.
If a politician wants to legislate morality, then we should feel free to examine their business if they don’t follow their own alleged principles.
DING DING DING
No more calls; we have a winner!
flight
July 12, 2007, 1:31pm
71
As for rational, I go by what I see, and what I see is that the Republicans are amoral predators.
As for “fair and balanced”, I regard the Republicans as evil, and my enemy. I have no interest in being “fair” towards them, and I’m certainly not going to be “balanced” towards vermin.
Please stop being on my side.
It’s a reminder of Emerson’s saying of a dinner guest, “The more he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted the spoons.”
Okay, Kennedy and Clinton we pretty much know about, and I’ve heard the odd thing about Eisenhower (though I still find it a little hard to believe), but Roosevelt? The guy in a wheelchair got some outside the WH?
Ayuh.
Roosevelt found romantic outlets outside his marriage. One of these was with Eleanor’s social secretary Lucy Mercer, with whom Roosevelt began an affair soon after she was hired in early 1914. In September 1918, Eleanor found letters in Franklin’s luggage that revealed the affair. Eleanor confronted him with the letters and demanded a divorce. While the marriage survived, Eleanor established a separate house in Hyde Park at Valkill.
This affair, however, was a few years before FDR was paralyzed and long before he was president.
Okay, Kennedy and Clinton we pretty much know about, and I’ve heard the odd thing about Eisenhower (though I still find it a little hard to believe), but Roosevelt? The guy in a wheelchair got some outside the WH?
Ayuh.
Roosevelt found romantic outlets outside his marriage. One of these was with Eleanor’s social secretary Lucy Mercer, with whom Roosevelt began an affair soon after she was hired in early 1914. In September 1918, Eleanor found letters in Franklin’s luggage that revealed the affair. Eleanor confronted him with the letters and demanded a divorce. While the marriage survived, Eleanor established a separate house in Hyde Park at Valkill.
This affair, however, was a few years before FDR was paralyzed and long before he was president.
Of course, Eleanor’s story is even more interesting . . .
Ike had a continuing affair with his driver in Europe. It was a mere 20 year tryst. If you said all politicians are guilty of these acts you would be wrong. But not far wrong.
Shodan
July 12, 2007, 4:38pm
77
BrainGlutton:
Story here.
Of course, Senator David Vitter (R-LA) is sorry for his sin. But what makes it even juicier is what he wrote back in '98 about Clinton’s impending impeachment:
And in an October 29, 1998, opinion piece for the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Vitter took issue with a previous article, written by two law professors who had argued that impeachment “is a process of removing a president from office who can no longer effectively govern; it is not about punishment.” Given that Clinton was still a capable chief executive, they had maintained, impeachment was not in order.
Vitter, a graduate of Harvard University and Tulane law school and a Rhodes scholar, was aghast at this amoral position. He blasted the law professors for criticizing those congressional Republicans pushing for Clinton’s impeachment. Their argument that impeachment is “not primarily about right and wrong or moral fitness to govern,” he wrote, was utterly wrongheaded. He continued:
Some current polls may suggest that people are turned off by the whole Clinton mess and don’t care – because the stock market is good, the Clinton spin machine is even better or other reasons. But that doesn’t answer the question of whether President Clinton should be impeached and removed from office because he is morally unfit to govern.
The writings of the Founding Fathers are very instructive on this issue. They are not cast in terms of political effectiveness at all but in terms of right and wrong – moral fitness. Hamilton writes in the Federalists Papers (No. 65) that impeachable offenses are those that “proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”
In considering impeachment, Vitter asserted, Congress had to judge Clinton on moral terms. Decrying the law professors’ failure to see this, Vitter observed, “Is that the level of moral relatively [sic] and vacuousness we have come to?” If no “meaningful action” were to be taken against Clinton, Vitter wrote, “his leadership will only further drain any sense of values left to our political culture.”
What goes around sometimes does come around.
Do you have any indication that Vitter was talking about adultery, instead of the offenses for which Clinton was impeached?
Regards,
Shodan:
Do you have any indication that Vitter was talking about adultery, instead of the offenses for which Clinton was impeached?
Regards,
Note the stress on the word values.
tdn
July 12, 2007, 4:59pm
79
Wow. That’s low, even for you. “Ha ha, you got shot!”
Come back and visit us once you’ve graduated from the fourth grade.
Okay, Kennedy and Clinton we pretty much know about, and I’ve heard the odd thing about Eisenhower (though I still find it a little hard to believe), but Roosevelt? The guy in a wheelchair got some outside the WH?
Have you seen Eleanor Roosevelt ? The lady was uglier than homemade soap. I’d crawl on bum legs to get away from her, too.
