Abramoff Paid Hastert to Protect Child Prostitution

[Plane]

Hahahahaa!

Yes indeed , and measures that would truely shut down Prostitution might need to be so draconian that no one would like them.

But where there is evidence of Slave trade or underage enforced prostitution , it may be worthwile to discourage the practice somehow.

Local commanders can declare a bar off limits to service personell , they usely do this after a servicemember is harmed in it.


Would a Ship captain be justified in declareing a particular place off limits because he had reason to beleive that the sex workers were being exploited?
Well if severely exploited or endangered?

We could wind up with a military agency responsible for ensureing that brothels meet a minimal standard.
Perhaps issueing a monthly certificate?

The Imperial Japaneese Army had an office like that, they made certrain that there were brothels availible and handled the recruiting themselves.

Somewhere before we get there we should quit.

[Michael Tee]

My hat's off to BT for his valiant efforts to re-focus the current debate on Hastert and turn it into one on - - who else but? - - CLINTON!!!

It's absolutely hilarious.  The current issue is Hastert's failure to protect children. 

Hastert's record on protection of children is obviously relevant to the current debate. 

Hastert's failure to protect child prostitutes in the Marianas is clearly part of that record.

BT's answer to Hastert's prior record is:  NO ANSWER.  Don't deal with it  There IS no prior record.

Focus instead on the surrounding circumstances:  Who else might have failed to protect the child prostitutes of the Marianas?  (Clinton.  Clinton.  Clinton.)  Who do you think was fucking those child prostitutes anyways?  (Clinton.  Clinton.  Clinton.)  Who got the money those kids were making?  (Clinton.  Clinton.  Clinton.)  Who owned the bars they worked in?  (Clinton.  Clinton.  Clinton.)  Who stole them from their families and sold them to the bars?  etc.  How can we stop child prostitution now?  How can we stop prostitution itself?  Why is there sin in the world?

It's fascinating, but back to the topic of the debate, the object of the Marianas story in the first place:  Hastert is a real piece of shit.  He took money to lobby on behalf of the pimps of underage prostitutes in the Marianas and he hushed up the case of a sexual predator preying on young pages who were his responsibility to protect.  You can't get any lower than that, and, yes, Fox "News" to the contrary, he IS a Republican.

[BT]

Once again you get it wrong Mikey.

You just seem to be upset that i pointed out that the one man who could have done something in the late 90's when all this was going down, failed to act. And that man was Clinton

You presented the issue as one about children. The one man who could have protected them , didn't. And that man was Clinton

If you had presented the issue as one of the undue influence of lobbyist, i wouldn't have had nearly the opportunity to make my case. Fact is, you framed the issue incorrectly. And i can't be held accountable for your strategic mistakes.

[Michael Tee]

<<Once again you get it wrong Mikey. >>

OK, BT.  Shoot.

<<You just seem to be upset that i pointed out that the one man who could have done something in the late 90's when all this was going down, failed to act. And that man was Clinton>>

Uh, not really, BT.  Recall that NOBODY was discussing "the late 90's when all this was going down," the topic that was under discussion was the more current one of Dennis Hastert and his failure then and now to take any measures to protect vulnerable children.

<<You presented the issue as one about children. >>

Well that's not even a half-truth.  The issue was chidren AND more importantly, Hastert's failure to protect them.  Alone, the issue of children would not even have arisen on this board, and did not arise, until Hastert manifested a desire to subordinate the protection of children to the interests of the Republican Party.

<<The one man who could have protected them , didn't. And that man was Clinton>>

If and when the more general debate ever opens in this pages as to which party and which politicians better protected the interests of children in America or in the world, we can discuss Clinton's alleged failures and everyone else's alleged failures too.  (You won't win that debate either, quite frankly.  Some people still remember the Reagan administration's attempts to classify Ketchup as a vegetable.)

<<If you had presented the issue as one of the undue influence of lobbyist, i wouldn't have had nearly the opportunity to make my case. >>

Why should I have framed the issue around lobbyists and their influence?  Why should I have framed it around child protection in general, rather than on Hastert's failure to protect children now and in the past?  The issue was what the issue was, but thanks for your attempts to make it something else - - anything else - - but the failure of a sitting Republican leader to put child protection ahead of Party interests?

<<Fact is, you framed the issue incorrectly.>>

Fact is, you keep avoiding the issue by any means possible.  It's correctly framed alright, tightly around Hastert's head and neck, Hastert the sitting Republican leader, protected by all the other Republican leaders, and his egregious failures to protect children at risk, but for very obvious reasons you don't want to deal with it.  Too bad, cuz it won't go away.  The voters going to the polls in November will quite naturally want to know why Hastert is still in office and enjoying Republican support, not why Clinton didn't declare Marianas strip joints off limits in the 1990s.
 
<<And i can't be held accountable for your strategic mistakes. >>

Don't make me laugh, BT.  You can't be held accountable for anythingl

[BT]

The voters going to the polls in November will quite naturally want to know why Hastert is still in office and enjoying Republican support, not why Clinton didn't declare Marianas strip joints off limits in the 1990s.

I think the voters well know what is going on here and they understand that it is being blown out of proportion for political gain. My guess is that there is a point of no return on this and that voters will look at the records of their congressman and vote accordingly regardless of how much you want to try and bring down Hastert. The voters may decide they prefer their republican congressmen and are aware that the speakership cn change come january. They also know that voting for an alternative candidate brings them Pelosi and they might not be as comfortable with that notion as you suspect.

So in a way your focus on Hastert puts a spotlight on Pelosi and i don't think that is what your really want.

I suspect a GOP mole in the high lavels of DEM strategists.

[Michael Tee]

<<I think the voters well know what is going on here and they understand that it is being blown out of proportion for political gain. >>

Yeah that's what I think too.  Who really gives a shit about underage teenage boys being seduced  by perverts three and four times their age, whom they come to Washington to serve as pages?  The voters care about really IMPORTANT issues like stem cell research and banning gay marriage by Constitutional amendments, not that their kids might get fucked in the ass by perverts when they come to Washington as pages.

<<My guess is that there is a point of no return on this and that voters will look at the records of their congressman and vote accordingly regardless of how much you want to try and bring down Hastert. >>

Well, you just might be right there. 

<<The voters may decide they prefer their republican congressmen and are aware that the speakership can change come january. They also know that voting for an alternative candidate brings them Pelosi and they might not be as comfortable with that notion as you suspect.

<<So in a way your focus on Hastert puts a spotlight on Pelosi and i don't think that is what your really want. >>

I was just having a little fun with you, BT.  Personally I don't think the Republican core gives a shit about Hastert or the pages - - they've got an agenda that they're hell-bent on protecting and they won't get blown off course even if Hastert, Foley and a couple of pages were caught circle-jerking live on national TV.  In a country where torture is accepted, habeas corpus is dead and lies are routine, who in hell is going to get all bent out of shape over the fate of one or two pages served up to the likes of Mark Foley?

<<I suspect a GOP mole in the high lavels of DEM strategists>>

Nah, just mark it down to unrealistically high expectations of the integrity of the American voter.

[sirs]

Who really gives a shit about underage teenage boys being seduced  by perverts three and four times their age, whom they come to Washington to serve as pages?

Apparently not the Dems, when it was one of their Politicians, not just seducing, but actually having sex with them.  Yea, who really cares?  In fact, if this were a Dem, we'd be campaigning for his re-election vs running him out of the House.