Author Topic: L'Affaire Spitzer  (Read 23387 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Brassmask

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #120 on: March 14, 2008, 02:23:16 PM »
in other words repeal a bunch of laws and that would mean he didn't break any laws?  ::)


It's how they're going to fix it for the telecoms and Bush and his cronies.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #121 on: March 14, 2008, 02:26:17 PM »
And you'll be sure to demonstrate when that happens, right Brass?
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8010
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #122 on: March 14, 2008, 02:54:53 PM »
uhm the whole kidnapping scenerio is flawed

by having a person taken unwillingly,the whole situation becomes illegal
how would a john unknowingly have business with a kidnapped girl ?
no mater what the john is in full knowledge he or she is doing something illegal(despite not knowing the girl is unwilling)
somehow people seem to presume making prostitution legal allow all other acts become acceptable.
despite the fact nevada has legalized and quite often disproved all the negative claims of prostitution.


Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #123 on: March 14, 2008, 05:40:31 PM »

You are confusing a "double" standard with a "different" standard.  I have a different SORT of standard concerning sex crimes because they are a different SORT of crime.


That you want to separate out sex crime as different only reinforces for me that you're using a double standard. You're excusing it by arguing that it is separate. That is just the way I see it.


So to compare being forced to do work that is - even when forced - a legitimate type of work, it differs from being forced to have sex, which is rape.  Try it this way.  Suppose I force my kid to do the dishes.


You make your goat do the dishes? How does that work?

Seriously though, I gotta stop you right there. No one is saying that making your child wash the dishes is comparable to forcing someone to have sex. I'm talking about actual enslavement, people enslaved and forced to do work, domestic cleaning, construction, et cetera. The job in and of itself is still a legitimate action; it is the enslavement that is wrong. Sex in and of itself is a legitimate action, but forcing someone to do it is what is wrong. Consensual sex between adults is okay. Rape is not. Consensual prostitution should be okay. Coerced prostitution should not be.



There is nothing inherently wrong with housework, even if it is forced on you.  There is, however, a difference between consentual sex and sex that is forced on you.


There is a difference between consensual prostitution and being forced into it.


Quoting sex workers who view sex as nothing more than a business isn't going to do much to prove your point.  Frankly, I give it the same credence I do tobacco companies claiming that tobacco is not addictive.


Counterarguments from prostitutes are lies? That is awfully convenient.


Exactly my point.  Yes, the argument IS quite weak.  But if we view it apart from the essential right to bear arms, it has merit.  That's why I said I had an ulterior motive and I was playing "devil's advocate."  They seem at first glace to be the same argument, but they are not.


Then I'm not sure what your point is here. I guess you're trying to say something about me pointing out that there is a difference between consensual sex and coerced sex, but I don't at all see how your example applies.


Obviously people own their own bodies, but when someone is forced into sexual slavery that ownership is violated.


No one is contradicting that.


As long as you fail to consider the realities of the trade, or to "conflate the issues" you can easily dismiss the problems associated with this crime by making the noble appeal to freedom.  I see it differently.


While I am refusing to conflate slavery with prostitution, I am not failing to consider the realities of the trade. In point of fact, considering the realities of the trade is exactly what I am doing.


You quoted the portion of my argument that supported your point, but omitted the portion immediately following which added in this factor.  Once again, if you separate the issues, you can ignore the total reality of the situation.


On the contrary, I'm not ignoring the reality of the situation. I was making a point about the reality of the situation.


Now here you requote the same statement, but add in the qualification I made.


Yes, which goes to my assertion that I'm not trying to separate issues with the intent to ignore anything.


You claim that people have fundamental rights, but then acknowledge that there are circumstances where those rights should be reasonably restricted.


Did I? Saying that people have rights to choose what to do with their time and effort is not saying that murder is okay. It means the opposite in fact because murder is an infringement on someone else's rights. So saying that murder should be a crime does not mean I support the abridgment of rights. It means I support the protection of rights. People often mistake support for individual rights for support for lawless behavior. (Not saying you would, just saying it happens.) I prefer to cut off such dumb arguments before they start.


I always hear the "black market" argument when talking about abortion, drugs, or other issues of so-called "moral" crimes.  Well, in fact, a hooker who is beaten, robbed, or raped CAN call the police.  If she is really worried about prosecution, she can simply say she has been robbed and plead the fifth concerning anything else.


And you think I'm ignoring the reality of the situation?


Further, to use you "double standard" argument, many women are in perfectly legal marriages and are beaten and raped continuously.  Yet they cannot contact police because of fear of retribution from the perpetrator.  We wouldn't, however, outlaw marriage


Not quite the same situation. The abused wife has no reason to fear retribution from the police. The prostitute does.


That's because, once again, in spite of the inherent risks of marriage, the right to marry and raise a family is an essential element of freedom.  And I maintain that boinking for pay is not.


I maintain that authority over one's body is.


The restriction on the right to control one's own body is justified because of the nature of the restriction, just as it should be (but sadly is not) in the abortion issue.


Abortion, again, not quite the same. It involves making decisions regarding another living thing that has no way to speak for itself or to consent in any way.


But I gotta tell you, a bad day on the job fixing copiers beats the hell out of a bad day having sex with strangers for money.  If my customer is unhygenic, physically abusive or just plain ugly, I don't have to worry about that as a copier tech.


If prostitution were legal, the prostitute probably wouldn't have to deal with that either.


Like I said, a lot of slaves were happy - because people can adapt to and cope with the worst of circumstances.  If you were fortunate to have a reasonably decent master and overseers with a sense of decency, the work aspect of slavery was probably no worse than the average free white farmhand or domestic worker.  But of course, even when it was accepted with the serenity of one who could not control it, it was the overriding issue.  I think most hookers probably have that same basic mindset:  "Hey, it's just a job like any other job."  But it isn't.


The problem here is that you're comparing prostitution as a whole with enslavement. The implication being that there is no such thing as voluntary and consensual prostitution, but that implication is, of course, wrong.


Quote
It is? 'Cause I coulda sworn your position in this conversation was against allowing people to decide that for themselves. You are arguing that prostitution should be illegal, are you not?

Yes, because among other issues, the right to control one's own body is often TAKEN AWAY from the hooker.  As such, freedom of choice IS my issue.  But you keep dismissing that by insisting it is a side issue.  It isn't.


Uh, no. I'm not dismissing that some people are forced into prostitution against their will. If I am dismissing anything, I would be dismissing that all prostitution is necessarily and always coerced prostitution. And if freedom of choice is the issue, then prostitution should be legal. Otherwise, you have abridged that freedom of choice.


Transactions with even the happiest of hookers still are subject to all of the "lesser" offenses I mentioned.


What part of life is not subject to bad things happening? Letting one's children play at a park runs a risk of a child being kidnapped. Owning a house or a business runs the risk of being robbed. That prostitutes run the risk of encountering bad people is not something anyone is disputing, but that they do so is hardly reason to outlaw prostitution. That's like outlawing letting people in a park because someone might get hurt or kidnapped.


(STUPID PUN ALERT: You are certainly not being a DO-BEE when participating in such activities.  Though certainly a doobie or two might be involved.  So it is, indeed, doobie-us.)  See, I'm getting better.


WARNING: my own stupid pun - Doobie or not doobie, that is the question. (Ow. That hurt. But it's funny. Well, sort of.)


Of course, ownership of one's body, in a general sense, is an essential right.   But restricting the right to one particular, rather doobi - no, I can't do that - dubious activity is not the same as abolishing the right - anymore than restricting the ability to shout "fire" in a crowded theater abolishes free speech.


But restricting the liberty to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater is about preventing an abuse of liberty that infringes on the rights of other people. Which leads me back to a question I asked before. In a case of consensual and wholly non-coerced prostitution, whose rights are violated?


I agree that it is slavery, but I disagree that the nature of the crime is the same.  Sex is far more intimate than construction work.  Forcing a person to clean your house DOES violate their freedom, but forced sex DIRECTLY violates the body.  The nature of sex is not just "mystically" different.  In fact, I believe that sex is a sacred issue, and an awful lot of people agree with that general view.  But even without that view which some choose to label "puritan,"  sex is physically more intimate than any other activity.  The direct penetration of one human being by another is, without further qualification, as intimate an activity as is possible.  It is just not the same as being forced to do anything else.


Yes, sex is a different activity than house cleaning. Forced sex is worse, you say. If we were talking about punishments for people guilty of slave trade, I'm happy to agree. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about keeping illegal a consensual action that does not violate anyone's rights because some people get forced into it. That is not sufficient grounds, imo, to keep prostitution illegal. Keep being forced into it illegal; I'll support that. But there is no reason I can see to keep the consensual act illegal.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11139
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #124 on: March 14, 2008, 09:50:21 PM »
WHOREABLE BEHAVIOR
March 12, 2008


This is a disaster for Hillary Clinton.

According to the wiretaps, New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer was delighted to be getting the prostitute "Kristen" again. At least he knew her name. It took Monica Lewinsky's boyfriend six sexual encounters to remember her name (bringing his lifetime average to 8.2).

You know that queasy feeling you get thinking about Bill Clinton back in the White House again? Now you remember why. Hillary Clinton couldn't feel worse about the Spitzer case if she were an actual New Yorker.

Proving that Karl Marx got everything wrong -- more bad news for Hillary -- history is indeed repeating itself, but, contra Marx, the first time as farce, the second time as tragedy. Clinton's scandal was hilarious; Spitzer's is just depressing.

Most people outside of New York can't grasp the enormity of Spitzer's political free fall.

Eliot Spitzer was the golden boy with an absolutely charmed life. His parents were the children of Jewish immigrants, who created a Ralph Lauren lifestyle for their children.

Spitzer's father made half a billion dollars in New York real estate and raised three high-achieving children -- two lawyers and a neurosurgeon. In a family like that, becoming governor of New York makes you the black sheep.

Spitzer went to the best schools -- Horace Mann, Princeton and Harvard Law School. He must have written some good papers.

He lives at the perfect address (Fifth Avenue and 79th St.) with his perfect Harvard Law School-educated Southern Baptist wife -- whose parents must be telling her they told her so right about now -- and their three perfect daughters. (Admittedly, the apartment is a gift from Dad: A mere top-flight education doesn't get you an apartment overlooking Central Park.)

And now Spitzer's entire anal-retentive, good paper-writing life has collapsed in the horrifying image of a frenzied masturbator. This is the most complete coup de grace imaginable, short of an assassin's bullet.

Spitzer's life is ruined. It doesn't matter if he has defenders who will wail, "It's his private life!" It doesn't matter if he fights the charges. It doesn't matter if this was a political prosecution. As Talleyrand said: "It's worse than a crime; it's a blunder."

Eliot Spitzer, Harvard Law graduate and Fifth Avenue denizen, is forevermore: "Client No. 9."

Forget about his career -- those around him better have him on suicide watch. Dudley Do-Right is on tape in a white-knuckle negotiation with pimps about payment for a prostitute. (Let's just be thankful that there's no anti-Semitic expression for Jews haggling about money.)

No one will ever be able to look him in the eye again. How can Spitzer hold a press conference when reporters won't stop giggling at him?

Spitzer can't go to the restaurants he used to frequent. He can't go to the Whitney Museum near his apartment. He can't go to track meets at his daughters' expensive private school. He can't show his face in public.

The golden boy's disgrace is deep and subliminal; it can't be expunged.

One shudders to imagine the sepulchral gloom pervading the Spitzer home this week. At least Hillary would liven the place up with some lamp-throwing.

Whatever Spitzer's flaws, he was a pristine product of wealth and attainment. And he threw away a star-studded life of accomplishment in a wanton, reckless pursuit of sex with prostitutes.
There's no prettifying what Spitzer has done. The Web site of the "Emperor's Club VIP" whorehouse patronized by Spitzer heroically claims the prostitutes -- or "models" -- are chosen for their "level of education, family background, intelligence, personality."

One can almost hear the typical John, heavy-breathing into the phone: "And this one you call 'Busty Betty' -- does she come from a good family? Parents still together? What church do they attend?"

Surprising no one, police wiretaps indicate that the "models" were semi-literate, could not learn to swipe a credit card and seemed invariably to be on drugs. That's what you get for $2,000 an hour in this charming business.

After one prostitute missed an appointment and left a "crazy" text message for one of her pimps, the procurer remarks that the girl is on drugs. It seems, the procurer adds, "a lot of these girls deteriorate to this point."

Behold the "victimless" crime of prostitution. Hard to believe these girls would turn to drugs. Having sex with strangers for money, nothing to live for ... just thinking about it makes me want to take drugs.

It's absurd to talk about Spitzer's problem being "hypocrisy" -- as if everything would be fine if only he had previously advocated legalized prostitution.

It's absurd to talk about "alpha males" and political power -- an alpha male does not bring his family shame and disaster. Who was more alpha than Ronald Reagan? Think he ever had a "whore problem"? This is more like a dog who wee-wees on your leg.

It's absurd to talk about legal defenses. This guy has fallen from the pinnacle of New York society to being a disgrace to his class. He's the Ivy League version of Paris Hilton.

That was always the advantage Clinton had: We never expected any better. He went from Skunk Trot, Ark., to Skunk Trot, Ark. Spitzer fell from Fifth Avenue to Skunk Trot, Ark.

http://www.anncoulter.com/

« Last Edit: March 14, 2008, 10:57:57 PM by ChristiansUnited4LessGvt »
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Rich

  • Guest
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #125 on: March 14, 2008, 09:57:16 PM »
Queen Ann rules.


Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #126 on: March 14, 2008, 10:53:39 PM »
I'm guessing by Rich's post that Ann Coulter is the author of the article. (ChristiansUnited4LessGvt failed to provide a source or an author.) But this is one reason why I don't have a lot of respect for her. She spouts ad hominem diatribes full of moralizing nonsense. I am not out to defend Spitzer, but the kind of rhetoric found in the article is sophomoric at best and contributes nothing of value to this conversation.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Rich

  • Guest
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #127 on: March 14, 2008, 11:04:41 PM »
I disagree.

Ann is spot on with her analysis and infuses some much needed humor into the situation. I enjoy watching eviscerate the left and expose their hypocritical under belly. It's just giving them some of their own medicine

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11139
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #128 on: March 14, 2008, 11:08:59 PM »
It's just giving them some of their own medicine

Thats it EXACTLY Rich.
It's fun to give a little back to them.
We've had to endure all their crap on places like SNL for decades.
Ann is quite skilled at punching them back very hard.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #129 on: March 14, 2008, 11:35:43 PM »

Ann is spot on with her analysis


Not that I can see.


and infuses some much needed humor into the situation. I enjoy watching eviscerate the left and expose their hypocritical under belly. It's just giving them some of their own medicine


Obviously, I don't agree.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8010
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #130 on: March 15, 2008, 12:25:07 AM »
Surprising no one, police wiretaps indicate that the "models" were semi-literate, could not learn to swipe a credit card and seemed invariably to be on drugs

uhm
what does that mean?
is she saying the escort are or not on drugs?
if she is
she`s most likely wrong
that high price requires a screenig process which cannot be skipped
this is not the julia robert`s type call girl
this is the donna dixon type escort

fatman

  • Guest
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #131 on: March 15, 2008, 12:52:30 AM »
We've had to endure all their crap on places like SNL for decades.

Pray tell, who forced you to endure SNL?  Did your TV repairman sneak in in the middle of the night and lock your TV onto NBC, and make sure that your tv never shuts off?  Weld the plug to the outlet maybe?  Did he also lock all of your doors and put superglue on your couch so that you have to remain in front of the tube?  Spike your food with methamphetamine so that you can't go to sleep?  Ohhhh, that terrible TV guy!

No one forced you to endure anything.  Quit being a victim already.  I almost said F***ing victim, but I don't want to hear you crying that I dropped an "F bomb" and victimizing you.  You'll notice that I made no reference to you being a racist, so please don't drag that into it either.  I can see why you like Ann, she caters to supposed victims.

And yes, Queen Ann is a good name for her.  She does look like a man in drag, or possibly a horse.

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11139
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #132 on: March 15, 2008, 01:22:28 AM »
Pray tell, who forced you to endure SNL? 

Nobody does anymore.
The new world is here.
The dinosaurs are dying
Not to worry....FOX NEWS/DRUDGE/TALK RADIO/INTERNET/YOUTUBE = The great equalizers!
Larry King? does he even have a show any more?
The New York Slimes? Are they bankrupt yet?
Dan Rather who?

btw..you should look up the defintion of endure

No one forced you to endure anything.  Quit being a victim already. 

Victim?
LOL, far from it.
Now thats laughable!
No, excuse me, I am doing quite well thank you very very much.

I almost said F***ing victim,

Ha ha ha ha Beavis thats so funny.
I am not laughing my ass off.  ::)

but I don't want to hear you crying that I dropped an "F bomb" and victimizing you.

Victimizing?
Why would the "F-Bomb" that you use do anything but expose you for what you are?

You'll notice that I made no reference to you being a racist,
so please don't drag that into it either.


LOL, that bothered you enough to bring it up?
Yeah it's about as deperate as needing the F-bomb in a political forum

I can see why you like Ann, she caters to supposed victims.

I like Ann because she kicks ass!
Michelle Malkin too.

And yes, Queen Ann is a good name for her.  She does look like a man in drag, or possibly a horse.

What she looks like? 
Is this a beauty contest?
I don't really care what she looks like, as long as she continues to expose the Left for what they are.

 
 
« Last Edit: March 15, 2008, 01:24:16 AM by ChristiansUnited4LessGvt »
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #133 on: March 15, 2008, 02:13:03 AM »

btw..you should look up the defintion of endure


I confess I wondered what you might have meant with that comment. There are several definitions of course. And the context of your use of the word is relevant. You used "endure" as a transitive verb, which is to say, you used it with an object. Which means the relevant definition of "endure" would be, basically,  "to allow, bear or undergo with tolerance and/or without yielding". I confess also, I am certain this does nothing to help your case at all.


Victim?
LOL, far from it.
Now thats laughable!


I think that was Fatman's point. You did say, "We've had to endure all their crap on places like SNL for decades." Yes, that is laughable.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Stray Pooch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
  • Pray tell me, sir, whose dog are you?
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #134 on: March 15, 2008, 09:50:03 AM »
I'm guessing by Rich's post that Ann Coulter is the author of the article. (ChristiansUnited4LessGvt failed to provide a source or an author.) But this is one reason why I don't have a lot of respect for her. She spouts ad hominem diatribes full of moralizing nonsense. I am not out to defend Spitzer, but the kind of rhetoric found in the article is sophomoric at best and contributes nothing of value to this conversation.

I'm no fan of Anne Coulter, but I think the "ad hominem" counterpoint in this particular column falls flat.  This issue is directly related to the man's character.  It's not like saying "Spitzer's budget sumission can't be trusted because he's a pervert."   We are talking about the man himself, both in terms of his own moral behavior and the hypocrisy it shows.  The very nature of the issue is ad hominem.  This man is a public servant who broke the law.  He is a man who screamed about the abuses of highly-paid corporate execs and then spent two to three times the average family's annual income on hookers, of all things.  The issue is him.  While sometimes the private lives of public figures are none of our business (like a celebrity doing drugs, or a teen pop star having a mental breakdown) when an elected official whose duties include upholding the law choses to break the law, that person is a legitimate issue.
Oh, for a muse of fire, that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention . . .