So now David Paterson will be governor – what does this mean for New York?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
My reasoning is moral, not amoral. It’s immoralize to criminalize consensual sex of any sort.
[/QUOTE]
Your reasoning is immoral. Prostitution destroys the lives of the women involved.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Why, because you say so?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, because I and society at large say so.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
You can’t say they’re both the perpertrators and the victims of the crime. That’s nonsensical. Don’t pretend you care about women being victimized by a profession and then say you want to throw them in jail for being victimized. Basicxally you just want to impose a self-righteous religious code on other people’s sexual choices. I don’t share your religious belief that sex is dirty or “demeaning.” Sorry.
[/QUOTE]
A person can be the victim of his or her own crime. You want to impose your self-righteous code to alleviate any potential guilt for victimizing women. I’ll ask you again, how would you feel about your mother, sister, or cousin as a legal prostitute?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
So now David Paterson will be governor – what does this mean for New York?
[/QUOTE]
I think Spitzer had other illegal issues that everyone was turning a blind eye to because they didn’t want to see Patterson replace him. Well, whether they like it or not, it’s happened over something no one ever suspected.
This means chances for a republican to take over in 2010 are strong. Patterson has no chance for a re-election. He’s considered to be too weak. Rudy Giuliani or Bloomberg could take over now.
Meanwhile, that beast from H*ll (the current atty general) wants to be governor in the worst way. He’s even worst then Spitzer.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
Prostitution destroys the lives of the women involved.
[/QUOTE]
It might not if they were not outside the law.
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
I haven’t read this thread yet… so I’m not sure if anyone said the same, but here it is:
Elliot Spitzer is a Grandiose Narcissist. He thinks he’s above the law, and the rules do not apply to him… he even thinks it so unfair that he has to resign. I guarantee he is thinking, “How could this be happening to me? Poor me!!”
Yes, I am gloating at his demise because he has gone after and judged others with such self-righteousness that his fall clearly karma.
Just a few weeks ago he let all the Pataki political appointees go (he fired all of us).. so you know I am really thinking, wow, karma is a mother**cker.
[/QUOTE]
I’d like to think he didn’t fall on his sword so much as sit on it. If the prosecutors are smart they will get him for failure to pay taxes so he has to pay back taxes and penalties.
Probably not really a lot of difference. Bruno and Silver have already shown that New York politics is controlled more by the legislature than the executive. Paterson, as a non-elected governor, is unlikely to have more power to change this than Spitzer did.
Ideologically, Paterson is considered to be more liberal than Spitzer. His political background is more exclusively NYC-oriented than Spitzer’s was. And he doesn’t have Spitzer’s background in criminal prosecution.
There will probably be no change in the upcoming presidential election. Spitzer was a pledged superdelegate for Clinton. Paterson, as far as I know, has not stated who he would vote for as a superdelegate, but he’s been a Clinton supporter in the past. In fact he was considered a front-runner to be appointed to her senate seat if she was elected President. Which will make an interesting dilemma for him if Clinton manages to pull off an upset and win the presidency; will Paterson appoint himself to the Senate or stay on as Governor?
In terms of being elected, I’m guessing Paterson will be a lame duck. Attorney General Andrew Cuomo or NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg are more likely Democratic candidates to run for Governor in 2010.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
Your reasoning is immoral. Prostitution destroys the lives of the women involved.
[/quote]
Not when it’s decriminalized and regulated.
You realize that’s not an argument, of course. “Society at large” used to say that interracial sex was “immoral.” Society is stupid.
No they can’t. IMO, nothing can rightly be called a “crime” unless it infringes on the rights of another person or society as a whole. A person cannot infringe on his/her own rights.
No, I want to remove the circumstances which cause women to be victimized. I don’t have the slightest bit of “guilt” over anything since I’ve never patronized a prostitute or had any involvement with thje sex trade industry at all. I’ve never even been to strip bar. I have no guilt to alleviate. I jusrt recognize an immoral law when I see one and I’m not arrogant enough to think I havce a right to tell women who they can fuck or why.
Not as bad as if they were Republicans.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
I’d like to think he didn’t fall on his sword so much as sit on it. If the prosecutors are smart they will get him for failure to pay taxes so he has to pay back taxes and penalties.
[/QUOTE]
How did he fail to pay taxes? His purchase of prostitute services?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
It might not if they were not outside the law.
[/QUOTE]
The destruction of personal self worth is not related to the legality of the profession. I don’t think you can make the case that the Happy Hooker is anything but a statistical myth. Drugs are often involved as an escape mechanism from the debasement experienced. These woman are not treated well by their clients. Not even the “high class” hookers. If I could find the article I’d post it but Spitzer was alledged to be a rough client.
[QUOTE=unconventional]
How did he fail to pay taxes? His purchase of prostitute services?
[/QUOTE]
If they didn’t charge him tax then he’s liable for it. This all started as an IRS investigation so it’s conceivable he will be charged.
[QUOTE=unconventional]
I don’t necessarily believe the Spitzer investigation was the result of the bank filing a suspicious activity report.
[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily directly, but it does look like he fell into the FBI’s lap fortuitously. Or, rather, after a long stakeout for the purpose of getting a john who happened to make for a great trophy.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Not as bad as if they were Republicans.
[/QUOTE]
O K . You’d rather your mother be a prostitute than a Republican. Maybe karma can arrange for the world to treat you with all the respect that johns give to legal prostitutes.
Prostitution is at least making an honest living by the sweat of your, well, whatever.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
The destruction of personal self worth is not related to the legality of the profession.
[/quote]
Nor to the practice of it.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
I don’t think you can make the case that the Happy Hooker is anything but a statistical myth.
[/quote]
Can you make a statistical case to the contrary? (Bearing in mind that for these purposes any relevant study would have to be limited to jurisdictions where prostitution is legal.)
So if his name was “Swallowzer” instead of “Spitzer”, would there be any evidence to hang him with?
[QUOTE=Magiver]
´
A person can be the victim of his or her own crime. You want to impose your self-righteous code to alleviate any potential guilt for victimizing women. I’ll ask you again, how would you feel about your mother, sister, or cousin as a legal prostitute?
[/QUOTE]
What does that have to do with anything? I don’t want any of the females in my family to be promiscous at all. But that doesn’t mean I would favor making sex before marriage illegal.
The bottom line is, with prostitution laws, you are denying the prostitues their pursuit of happiness. Isn’t that supposed to mean something to you americans? And don’t give me the stuff about how they are unhappy and stuff. Why should you be the judge of that? And how could you possibly know if that is true in every case, including the many cases where openly state that they are happy about their lives? What would you say if the lawmakers suddenly decided that too many people in your profession were “unhappy”, and you had to suddenly completely shift career?
[QUOTE=Magiver]
If they didn’t charge him tax then he’s liable for it. This all started as an IRS investigation so it’s conceivable he will be charged.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not understanding this. If they didn’t charge him sales tax, then that is a local matter, and not an IRS/federal issue..
[QUOTE=mr. jp]
What does that have to do with anything? I don’t want any of the females in my family to be promiscous at all.
[/QUOTE]
Why not? If, as you say, they like it then lets put a price tag on it. How much is your mother worth to someone who wants to fuck her in the ass and call her names? Prostitution is an ugly demeaning business and it doesn’t suddenly become pretty because taxes are paid.
This is not about being promiscuous, this is about paying someone for what should be an intimate act. It’s degrading to the women who get caught up in it.
[QUOTE=mr. jp]
What does that have to do with anything? I don’t want any of the females in my family to be promiscous at all. But that doesn’t mean I would favor making sex before marriage illegal.
The bottom line is, with prostitution laws,** you are denying the prostitues their pursuit of happiness. Isn’t that supposed to mean something to you americans? And don’t give me the stuff about how they are unhappy and stuff. Why should you be the judge of that? And how could you possibly know if that is true in every case, including the many cases where openly state that they are happy about their lives? ** What would you say if the lawmakers suddenly decided that too many people in your profession were “unhappy”, and you had to suddenly completely shift career?
[/QUOTE]
While I agree that prostitution should be legal, there’s a reason why women get caught up in whoring themselves, and it usually isn’t because they want strange men to fuck them for money. There’s a reason why they don’t want “face-kissing”…it isn’t about intimacy.
I was a young man once and was stationed in Germany while in the US Army and when I had my only experience with a prostitute (it was legal), she seemed more tired and “putting on a show for money” than “happy” to fuck me.
Thank God for condoms, at least. I regret that experience on many levels.
Whether or not it’s a taxable, medically certifiable profession in Europe is pretty irrelevant.
These women, if you asked them in their childhood what they wanted to do with their lives invariably would NOT have said “I want to be a hooker”.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
I’m not understanding this. If they didn’t charge him sales tax, then that is a local matter, and not an IRS/federal issue..
[/QUOTE]
If they didn’t charge him tax that is a state/County matter involving Spitzer. If they didn’t pay income tax that is a Federal matter. This isn’t just about the Governor. It involves everybody.