One must wonder...
 

HK wrote:
wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
I don't believe that sexual relationships between consenting adults
is the business of anyone other than the adults involved in the
relationship.

Try that line on your wife and see how it flies.


We agree. We're loyal to each other because we are, but we don't believe
that matters of sexuality between consenting adults should be the
business of the law, or even the general public.

I don't give a damn who Governor Spitzer sleeps with, not even if he
sleeps with hookers, so long as he is using his own money to pay for his
fun. If he was using public funds, he should be prosecuted for that, but
not for the sex.

I think prostitution and drugs should be decriminalized, but i would
never recommend we just ignore those crimes we don't agree with. I
guess that is one of the things you and will just disagree.

One must wonder...
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
...



Well, in that case, I offer up The Bush Administration. Pure hypocrisy,
no ethics or morals.

I win.


I don't know about that. The issues discussed in the Duck's link earlier
this morning suggest that Bush and Cheney have a plan far beyond that
imaginable by their critics.

Eisboch

Oh, oh, look out below, incoming. 8-)

One must wonder...
 

"HK" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:

We've progressed to a society of semantics and qualifying what "it"
means.
Personally, I could care less if someone hires a hooker. Big Deal.
But, I lose all respect for someone who cheats on his or her spouse in
doing so.
It has something to do with believing in commitments and honesty.

Eisboch

I don't disagree at all with your point here. I share your feeling about
loyalty to one's spouse. It's not semantics. I just don't feel it is my
business who Spitzer sleeps with.

So a politician who is dishonest enough to cheat on his wife should
otherwise be trusted by the rest of the public?

Eisboch

One must wonder...
 

wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
...


Consensual - you know - both parties agree. They consent. The standard
definition. What do you think consensual means? :)


I think I'll reconsider our personal value system and encourage our
kids
that:

Extramarital sex is fun and ok ..... as long as it is consensual.
Forget
the vows and commitments you made to each other.
Drugs are fun and ok ..... as long as everyone in the family agrees.
Introduce your 12 year old to the pleasures.
Lying and cheating is ok .... as long as it only serves your personal
agenda.

In other words, become a Democrat.

Eisboch


This behavior seems normal if you are a swinger like Harry. This guy
really gives me the creeps.


Are you projecting again? Why would you think I was a "swinger,"
because I am not upset by adult expressions of sexuality?
No, that's not it. I don't think you can tell the difference between
right and wrong.


Ahh, well. That's your problem, not mine.

One must wonder...
 

D.Duck wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Valgard Toebreakerson wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:40:23 -0500, John H.
wrote:

why most of the major media refuse to mention that Spitzer is a
Democrat,
although the party affiliation is mentioned ad nauseum when a
Republican is
involved in a sex scandal.

It couldn't be media bias, could it?

http://tinyurl.com/2c3kms

The undereducated must never know the truth, else the Democrats may
lose
their base.
Got a better one for you.

Go to Detroit news - paper, TV - whatever, and find what political
affiliation the mayor of Detroit is.

Oh - the reason?

He's involved with the murder a hooker.

And covering/obstructing the investigation.

Republicans involved in these scandals are identified by political party
because the GOP likes to identify itself as the party of "family
values," and since it obviously is not, it is interesting to point out
the various sexual adventures of "family value"
conservatives/Republicans. My favorite exposes involve
conservative/Republicans and gays.
One can only conclude, by your statments above, that the Democrat party
has no values, none, nada, zip. Is that correct.

Throw the bar on the floor, then everything we do will be above the bar
aren't a great party, that's the Democrats.


I don't believe that sexual relationships between consenting adults is the
business of anyone other than the adults involved in the relationship.

I don't take seriously any of "morality" crap as exuded by "family value"
conservatives/Republicans. It's all the height of hypocrisy.

.Hypocrisy you say. Spitzer is the poster boy for that trait.



Indeed he is. But that isn't illegal, usually.

One must wonder...
 

On Mar 12, 8:48*am, HK wrote:
wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
I don't believe that sexual relationships between consenting adults is
the business of anyone other than the adults involved in the
relationship.

Try that line on your wife and see how it flies.

We agree. We're loyal to each other because we are, but we don't believe
that matters of sexuality between consenting adults should be the
business of the law, or even the general public.

I don't give a damn who Governor Spitzer sleeps with, not even if he
sleeps with hookers, so long as he is using his own money to pay for his
fun. If he was using public funds, he should be prosecuted for that, but
not for the sex.

I agree with one caveat. If he broke any laws he should also be
prosecuted. Breaking the law, whether you believe in that actual law
is still breaking the law.

One must wonder...
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
I don't believe that sexual relationships between consenting adults
is the business of anyone other than the adults involved in the
relationship.

Try that line on your wife and see how it flies.


We agree. We're loyal to each other because we are, but we don't
believe that matters of sexuality between consenting adults should be
the business of the law, or even the general public.

I don't give a damn who Governor Spitzer sleeps with, not even if he
sleeps with hookers, so long as he is using his own money to pay for
his fun. If he was using public funds, he should be prosecuted for
that, but not for the sex.

I think prostitution and drugs should be decriminalized, but i would
never recommend we just ignore those crimes we don't agree with. I
guess that is one of the things you and will just disagree.


If prostitution is decriminalized, well, then, it isn't a crime, is it?

Stupid laws should be fought. If we followed your example, we'd still
have segregation.

One must wonder...
 

D.Duck wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
...


Well, in that case, I offer up The Bush Administration. Pure hypocrisy,
no ethics or morals.

I win.

I don't know about that. The issues discussed in the Duck's link earlier
this morning suggest that Bush and Cheney have a plan far beyond that
imaginable by their critics.

Eisboch

Oh, oh, look out below, incoming. 8-)




I missed that gem.

One must wonder...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:
We've progressed to a society of semantics and qualifying what "it"
means.
Personally, I could care less if someone hires a hooker. Big Deal.
But, I lose all respect for someone who cheats on his or her spouse in
doing so.
It has something to do with believing in commitments and honesty.

Eisboch
I don't disagree at all with your point here. I share your feeling about
loyalty to one's spouse. It's not semantics. I just don't feel it is my
business who Spitzer sleeps with.

So a politician who is dishonest enough to cheat on his wife should
otherwise be trusted by the rest of the public?

Eisboch



Too hard and fast. We have a president who "cheats on the public," which
is probably more significant of an offense.

I think Spitzer is suffering from some sort of personality disorder,
maybe bipolar. I'm not excusing his behavior, but it might explain his
high level of risk-taking.

One must wonder...
 

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:55:24 -0400, "jamesgangnc"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
why most of the major media refuse to mention that Spitzer is a Democrat,
although the party affiliation is mentioned ad nauseum when a Republican
is
involved in a sex scandal.

It couldn't be media bias, could it?

http://tinyurl.com/2c3kms

The undereducated must never know the truth, else the Democrats may lose
their base.

He paid for a hooker. bfd Misdemeaner most places.

Believe it or not, I'm not in the prostitution is evil camp - I don't
view it as a victimless crime, but on the other hand, it's not
something that is going to disappear from the face of the earth. I
dont' know what the answer is, but as a crime, I'm just not that sure.

However, if one is a crusading prosecuter who holds to a theoritical
high moral ground, who prosecutes and/or persecutes prostitution rings
and then uses those same services for whatever reason, then the
personal hyprocrisy is really the issue. Do as I say, not as I do
kind of issue.

Additionally, structuring payments to hide illegal activity is a crime
wether you agree that the activity is a crime or not. Transporting
prostitutes across state lines is a felony - Mann Act.

Complications arising from busting prostitution rings from one crime
family while not busting prostitution rings from a different crime
family (and this is speculation - I'm admitting it, but it is a
possibility) is the height of hubris not to mention illegal.

So it's not just all about sex - it's about crime and he committed
more than just one.