View Full Version : New York Governor Busted in High Dollar Prostitution Ring
Crazed Rabbit
03-11-2008, 03:00
Eliot Spitzer, who made his name bringing suits against crooked investment firms on Wall Street as attorney general for New York, and then went on to become governor, was caught as a client of an 'international' prostitution ring:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0310082spitzer1.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4424507&page=1
I gots to say I was surprised.
CR
Just goes to show, prostitution should be legal and regulated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulated_prostitution). There's always gonna be a hot young thang who wants money, and there's always gonna be an old thing who has it.
That said, I am surprised. Spitzer's public persona was all about incorruptibility. Any bets on whether or not he resigns?
ICantSpellDawg
03-11-2008, 04:47
I hope he resigns tomorrow. Scuzbucket. I never liked the dude.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-11-2008, 04:58
Apparently you can't think of him as being cheap. I suppose that counts for something.:rolleyes3:
Strike For The South
03-11-2008, 06:32
I would sleep with him for 5,500$ :ekk:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
03-11-2008, 06:39
I would sleep with him for 5,500$ :ekk:
$5500 an hour.
Mouzafphaerre
03-11-2008, 06:42
.
You're cheap. :2cents:
.
HoreTore
03-11-2008, 08:49
Is this a crime in the US? If not, what's the problem?
Adrian II
03-11-2008, 09:03
Spitzer, who officials say is identified in a federal complaint as "Client 9," arranged for a prostitute "Kristen" to meet him in Washington, D.C. So what? A man meets a prostitute. :drama2:
If he didn't do it during working-time and payed for it himself, a lot of noise over nothing then
CountArach
03-11-2008, 12:05
Is this a crime in the US? If not, what's the problem?
Yes it is a crime AFAIK.
Big_John
03-11-2008, 12:16
so stupid. porn is on the internet for a reason, guy. is it really that hard to keep it in your pants?
HoreTore
03-11-2008, 12:24
so stupid. porn is on the internet for a reason, guy. is it really that hard to keep it in your pants?
Well, masturbation with the member still in the pants can be a problem, though still very possible. It is, however, recommended that you at least unzip it, unless you happen to be wearing very wide pants.
Big_John
03-11-2008, 12:28
Well, masturbation with the member still in the pants can be a problem, though still very possible. It is, however, recommended that you at least unzip it, unless you happen to be wearing very wide pants.taken under advisement.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-11-2008, 12:50
Quick crib sheet for our non-locals:
1. Prostitution is illegal in almost all locales (Nevada -- but not Las Vegas -- being the only exception I know of). I personally do not agree with its illegality as I believe it makes the situation worse for all involved, but it was and is a crime under U.S. law.
2. Money and or prostitutes crossing state lines for purpose of prostitution is a federal crime and not just a state or local crime (illegal interstate commerce).
3. The governor in question had made his political name as an "ethics is everything" public prosecutor who prosecuted Wall Street financiers for shoddy ethics and, among other things, several prostitution rings.
Analysis:
Point three, of course, is one of the reasons the episode will be political suicide for him. It's one of those salicious and ironic scandals the media loves to play up. It should suffice that he'll have to resign office to avoid prosecution and that he now has official marriage problems -- instead we'll get coverage of everything -- including sex act preference -- as the 24-hour we have to fill the air with something news media overblows the whole stupid thing. :yes:
There are times I miss the "old days" when he'd have been quietly pulled aside and given the choice to resign to avoid public humiliation -- and we could avoid public tawdriness -- but those times are past.
It should not be illegal to sell something that you can perfectly legally give away for free.....that´s all I have to say on the matter of legalizing prostitution.
as for this sap......he´s screwed now.....the blood is in the water and the media sharks are circling.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-11-2008, 13:24
Is this a crime in the US? If not, what's the problem?
Um, prostitution is illegal in a lot of countries.
Personnally, I'm fine with it that way.
KukriKhan
03-11-2008, 14:35
Seamus wraps up how most media will play the story, the next chapter of which will include his resignation, and the Missus' vow to "stand by her man".
Interesting bits in the initial reports likely to be glossed over include:
The suspicious financial activity was initially reported by a bank to the IRS
Is this a post-9-11 requirement? Would he have been busted for the same 'financial activity' in 1999?
and:
Prosecutors reportedly have a series of e-mails and wiretapped phone conversations of Spitzer.
Are these the new-fangled 'warrantless'-type taps, or did a judge review and issue warrants for surviellance of a state gov?
Seamus Fermanagh
03-11-2008, 14:38
Is this a post-9-11 requirement? Would he have been busted for the same 'financial activity' in 1999?
Not sure of all the particulars in the banking industry, but insurance and finance have higher "reporting" requirements than before as a result of the Patriot Act and all insurance agents have to take a course on preventing money-laundering through insurance.
Vladimir
03-11-2008, 14:43
Not sure of all the particulars in the banking industry, but insurance and finance have higher "reporting" requirements than before as a result of the Patriot Act and all insurance agents have to take a course on preventing money-laundering through insurance.
Silly Americans, remember FINCEN. Banks will also report multiple transactions of under $10,000 if it looks like an attempt to avoid detection. Trading cattle and camels is a far safer means of payment.
Now I haven't done a study on this, but does anyone notice that when it's a Democrat scandal, news reports seem to seldom mention their party affiliation?
It doesn't appear in the abcnews link or in this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080311/ap_on_re_us/spitzer_prostitution) story I just read. When this first broke, I had to use Wikipedia to confirm what I thought- he's a Democrat. I never really liked the guy much, his anti-corruption crusading often smacked of plain populism.
2. Money and or prostitutes crossing state lines for purpose of prostitution is a federal crime and not just a state or local crime (illegal interstate commerce).As a side note, I believe the Mann Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_act) makes it a federal crime to transport someone you're not married to across a state line for sex.
Caminetti v. United States (242 U.S. 470, 484-85) (1917). The Court decided that the Mann Act applied not strictly to purposes of prostitution, but to other noncommercial consensual sexual liaisons. Thus consensual extramarital sex falls within the genre of “immoral sex.”:dizzy2:
Reminds me of a joke I've heard:Once there was a marine biologist, named Dr. Panglos, who loved dolphins. (When I say he loved dolphins though, I’m not talking about in any kind of “sick” way; he just loved to study them). He spent his time trying to feed and protect his beloved creatures of the sea. One day, in a fit of inventive genius, he came up with a serum that would make dolphins live forever!
Of course he was ecstatic. But he soon realised that, in order to mass produce this serum, he would need large amounts of a certain compound that was only found in nature in the metabolism of a rare South American myna bird. Carried away by his love for dolphins, however, he decided that he would go to the zoo and steal one of these birds.
As he was arriving at the zoo an elderly lion was escaping from its cage. The Lion’s name was Leo, which wasn’t too original of a name for a lion if you ask me, but it’s probably not important to the story. Anyway, the zoo keepers were alarmed and immediately began combing the zoo for the escaped animal, unaware that it had simply lain down on the sidewalk and had gone to sleep since it was the Lion’s regular naptime anyway.
Meanwhile, the marine biologist arrived at the zoo and stole his bird. He was so excited by the prospect of helping his dolphins that he stepped absent mindedly over the sleeping lion on his way back to his car. Immediately, 15 policemen converged on him and arrested him for the crime of transporting a myna across a staid lion for immortal porpoises.
ICantSpellDawg
03-11-2008, 14:57
Reminds me of a joke I've heard:Once there was a marine biologist, named Dr. Panglos, who loved dolphins. (When I say he loved dolphins though, I’m not talking about in any kind of “sick” way; he just loved to study them). He spent his time trying to feed and protect his beloved creatures of the sea. One day, in a fit of inventive genius, he came up with a serum that would make dolphins live forever!
Of course he was ecstatic. But he soon realised that, in order to mass produce this serum, he would need large amounts of a certain compound that was only found in nature in the metabolism of a rare South American myna bird. Carried away by his love for dolphins, however, he decided that he would go to the zoo and steal one of these birds.
As he was arriving at the zoo an elderly lion was escaping from its cage. The Lion’s name was Leo, which wasn’t too original of a name for a lion if you ask me, but it’s probably not important to the story. Anyway, the zoo keepers were alarmed and immediately began combing the zoo for the escaped animal, unaware that it had simply lain down on the sidewalk and had gone to sleep since it was the Lion’s regular naptime anyway.
Meanwhile, the marine biologist arrived at the zoo and stole his bird. He was so excited by the prospect of helping his dolphins that he stepped absent mindedly over the sleeping lion on his way back to his car. Immediately, 15 policemen converged on him and arrested him for the crime of transporting a myna across a staid lion for immortal porpoises.
That joke is awesome. Not really funny, but awesome.
What a prat. Deary me.
At least if you are going to do it, do it so no one knows!
:beam:
His reputation is in tatters, but from what I see and read of him, it should be political moves and ineptitude which drives him from office, not having sex with a prostitute. He shouldn't resign and the electorate should be given the opportunity to make the ultimate judgement - maybe the Dem party electorate first, as to whether they want him standing!
ICantSpellDawg
03-11-2008, 16:50
What a prat. Deary me.
At least if you are going to do it, do it so no one knows!
:beam:
His reputation is in tatters, but from what I see and read of him, it should be political moves and ineptitude which drives him from office, not having sex with a prostitute. He shouldn't resign and the electorate should be given the opportunity to make the ultimate judgement - maybe the Dem party electorate first, as to whether they want him standing!
I doub't that he'll resign - if he's as much of a scumbag as most people believe that he is (with a whole host of other scumbag actions) he'll drag it out like Clinton did. The thing is, Clinton cheated on his wife in his office and then purjured himself. Spitzer cheated on his wife, rented a prostitute and engaged in a federal felony by laundering money across state lines.
Plus he's a jerk.
We are his bosses, he can resign or face the firing squad. In NY though, most people are scum themselves (i don't have any links to polls), so I'm sure that they will accept it in time and it will set the bar to a new low.
He'll stay in office and NY will be even lower on the ethical totem poll than it was.
Now I haven't done a study on this, but does anyone notice that when it's a Democrat scandal, news reports seem to seldom mention their party affiliation?
Oh yeah, big time! It's like a conspiracy!
NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/nyregion/11cnd-spitzer.html?hp): "The governor, a Democrat in his first term ..."
AP (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gvseu7uDYI9vGyMHJCo51IdS-4twD8VB7N800): "The first-term Democrat was caught ..."
Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aB_ktXZRcpE4&refer=home): "Spitzer, a Democrat, was caught ..."
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7290071.stm): "There was little sympathy on display for Mr Spitzer, a first-term Democratic governor ..."
Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1062947520080310): "Spitzer, a married 48-year-old Democrat who investigated prostitution ..."
It's too much to be coincidence, man! Martha, fetch my tinfoil immediately!
Banquo's Ghost
03-11-2008, 17:44
As a side note, I believe the Mann Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_act) makes it a federal crime to transport someone you're not married to across a state line for sex.
Caminetti v. United States (242 U.S. 470, 484-85) (1917). The Court decided that the Mann Act applied not strictly to purposes of prostitution, but to other noncommercial consensual sexual liaisons. Thus consensual extramarital sex falls within the genre of “immoral sex.”:dizzy2:
Do I understand this a'right? You have a law that, should one cross a state line with one's girlfriend for a bit of how's-yer-father, sends one to jail? (But delightfully, if one escorts two or three such lovelies to awful perdition, one only gets the single sentence?)
No wonder the prisons are full. :shocked2:
(Loved the joke, by the way. :laugh4: )
Now I haven't done a study on this, but does anyone notice that when it's a Democrat scandal, news reports seem to seldom mention their party affiliation?
like Lemur already pointed out, is political affiliation is mentioned a'plenty in a lot of news items.
But like we already discussed before a few months ago...Republicans will normally catch more flak for stuff like this because they entitle themselfs as the "morals" party...so when they are found to have clay feet it´s pretty funny on top of everything...
I would just like to point out that yet again...
you imediatly know that this is a Democrat because he was caught having sex with FEMALE prostitutes :laugh4:
couldn´t resist that one :2thumbsup:
FactionHeir
03-11-2008, 20:38
He can always claim that he did it because he was trying to bust that prostitution ring too. Some entrapment can go a far way y'know :grin:
On a side note, he endorsed Clinton while his deputy endorsed Obama if I read one of the articles correctly.
Geoffrey S
03-11-2008, 22:27
“Adultery”
Rumours have spread about his adulterous affair. -2 Influence
Goofball
03-12-2008, 00:37
I would just like to point out that yet again...
you imediatly know that this is a Democrat because he was caught having sex with FEMALE prostitutes :laugh4:
HEY-O!
:laugh4:
Adrian II
03-12-2008, 02:21
you imediatly know that this is a Democrat because he was caught having sex with FEMALE prostitutes :laugh4: :2thumbsup:
Oh, the irony. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic4cmjVtBgY)
Big_John
03-12-2008, 03:20
Oh, the irony. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic4cmjVtBgY)i think that's the same route the girls from the emperor's club took to get to the mayflower hotel.
I hope he got something really good for that $4300. Any pics available on "Kristen"?
KukriKhan
03-12-2008, 17:56
Not yet, but soon, I bet.
Meanwhile, Spitzer's resignation (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/nyregion/12cnd-resign.html?ref=nyregion) is official.
ICantSpellDawg
03-12-2008, 18:22
More like Smeliot Spitzer...
Spitzer’s Media Enablers
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
March 12, 2008; Page A21
The fall of New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer holds many lessons, and the press will surely be examining them in coming months. But don't expect the press corps to delve into the biggest lesson of all -- its own role as his enabler.
Journalists have spent the past two days asking how a man of Mr. Spitzer's stature would allow himself to get involved in a prostitution ring. The answer, in my mind, is clear. The former New York attorney general never believed normal rules applied to him, and his view was validated time and again by an adoring press. "You play hard, you play rough, and hopefully you don't get caught," said Mr. Spitzer two years ago. He never did get caught, because most reporters were his accomplices.
[Spitzer's Media Enablers]
Journalism has many functions, but perhaps the most important is keeping tabs on public officials. That duty is even more vital concerning government positions that are subject to few other checks and balances. Chief among those is the prosecutor, who can use his awesome state power to punish, even destroy, private citizens.
Yet from the start, the press corps acted as an adjunct of Spitzer power, rather than a skeptic of it. Many journalists get into this business because they want to see wrongs righted. Mr. Spitzer portrayed himself as the moral avenger. He was the slayer of the big guy, the fat cat, the Wall Street titan -- all allegedly on behalf of the little guy. The press ate it up, and came back for more.
Time magazine bestowed upon Mr. Spitzer the title "Crusader of the Year," and likened him to Moses. Fortune dubbed him the "Enforcer." A fawning article in the Atlantic Monthly in 2004 explained he was "a rock star," and "the Democratic Party's future." In an uncritical 2006 biography, then Washington Post reporter Brooke Masters compared the attorney general to no less than Teddy Roosevelt.
What the media never acknowledged is that somewhere along the line (say, his first day in public office) Mr. Spitzer became the big guy, the titan. He had the power to trample lives and bend the rules, while also burnishing his own political fortune. He was the one who deserved as much, if not more, scrutiny as onetime New York Stock Exchange chief Dick Grasso or former American International Group CEO Maurice "Hank" Greenberg.
What makes this more embarrassing for any self-respecting journalist is that Mr. Spitzer knew all this, and played the media like a Stradivarius. He knew what sort of storyline they'd be sympathetic to, and spun it. He knew, too, that as financial journalism has become more competitive, breaking news can make a career. He doled out scoops to favored reporters, who repaid him with allegiance. News organizations that dared to criticize him were cut off. After a time, few criticized anymore.
Instead, reporters felt obligated to run with whatever he handed them. Consider the report in the wake of a 2005 op-ed in this newspaper by John Whitehead. A respected Wall Street figure, Mr. Whitehead dared to criticize Mr. Spitzer for his unscrupulously zealous pursuit of Mr. Greenberg. Mr. Spitzer later threatened Mr. Whitehead, telling him in a phone call that "You will pay the price. This is only the beginning and you will pay dearly for what you have done." Some months later, after more Spitzer excesses, Mr. Whitehead had the temerity to write another op-ed describing what Mr. Spitzer had said.
Within a few days, the press was reporting (unsourced, of course) that Mr. Whitehead had defended Mr. Greenberg a few weeks after a Greenberg charity had given $25 million to the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation -- a group Mr. Whitehead chaired. So Mr. Whitehead's on-the-record views were met with an unsourced smear implying bad faith. The press ran with it anyway.
In 2005, Mr. Spitzer went on national television to suggest that Mr. Greenberg had engaged in criminal activity. It was front-page news. About six months later, on the eve of a Thanksgiving weekend, Mr. Spitzer quietly disclosed that he lacked the evidence to press criminal charges. That news was buried inside the papers.
What makes this history all the more unfortunate is that the warning signs about Mr. Spitzer were many and manifest. In the final days of Mr. Spitzer's run for attorney general in 1998, the news broke that he'd twisted campaign-finance laws so that his father could fund his unsuccessful 1994 run. Mr. Spitzer won anyway, and the story was largely forgotten.
New York Stock Exchange caretaker CEO John Reed suggested Mr. Spitzer hadn't told the truth when he said that it was Mr. Reed who wanted him to investigate Mr. Grasso's pay. The press never investigated.
Mr. Spitzer's main offense as a prosecutor is that he violated the basic rules of fairness and due process: Innocent until proven guilty; the right to your day in court. The Spitzer method was to target public companies and officials, leak allegations and out-of-context emails to a compliant press, watch the stock price fall, threaten a corporate indictment (a death sentence), and then move in for a quick settlement kill. There was rarely a trial, fair or unfair, involved.
On the substance, his court record speaks for itself. Most of Mr. Spitzer's high-profile charges have gone up in smoke. A New York state judge threw out his case against tax firm H&R Block. He lost his prosecution against Bank of America broker Ted Sihpol (whom Mr. Spitzer threatened to arrest in front of his child and pregnant wife). Mr. Spitzer was stopped by a federal judge from prying confidential information out of mortgage companies. Another New York judge blocked the heart of his suit against Mr. Grasso. Mr. Greenberg continues to fight his civil charges. The press was foursquare behind Mr. Spitzer in all these cases, and in a better world they'd share some of his humiliation.
Instead, remarkably, they continue to defend him. Ms. Masters, his biographer, was on CNN the day Mr. Spitzer's prostitution news broke, reassuring viewers that the governor really was a "lovely" guy. Other news reporters were reporting what a "tragedy" it was that such a leading light in the Democratic Party could come to such an ignoble end.
There's little that's tragic about Mr. Spitzer, unless you consider his victims (which would appear to include his own family). The press would do well to meditate on that, and consider how many violations they winked at and validated over the years. Politicians don't exist to be idolized by the press, at least not by any press corps doing its job.
Ms. Strassel, who covered Eliot Spitzer's investigations, now writes the Journal's Potomac Watch column from Washington.
I hope he got something really good for that $4300. Any pics available on "Kristen"?
NSFW: http://dlisted.com/node/24512
HoreTore
03-12-2008, 20:45
NSFW: http://dlisted.com/node/24512
What the hell? $4300 and saggy breasts...?
The world of prostitution has truly gone down-hill...
KukriKhan
03-12-2008, 22:51
Even higher-end cyber-hookers out here on the west coast run about $2,500 (http://www.slate.com/id/73797/) per date. Presumeably, the additional $3,000 would be for guaranteed silence.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-12-2008, 22:54
...Presumeably, the additional $3,000 would be for guaranteed silence.
Well, THAT, was money well spent.
:laugh4:
What the hell? $4300 and saggy breasts...?
The world of prostitution has truly gone down-hill...
I hope that brothel has a complaints book.....that´s a terriblly overpriced piece of ass! :laugh4:
KukriKhan
03-12-2008, 23:09
Well, THAT, was money well spent.
:laugh4:
Yeah. :laugh4: I wonder what the Emperors Club's refund policy is. Maybe he could sue?
On the radio (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88132229) this morning, I heard a story (at the link) about how Spitzer got tripped up:
...Bank officials noticed frequent cash transfers from several accounts and it triggered a money laundering investigation. Banks use software to spot patterns in routine transactions...
Fascinating. These "transaction analysis programs" came about in 2001 (pre-9-11) because of then-NY Atty Gen Spitzer's prosecution of stock brokers and money launderers.
Hoisted on his own petard. He shudda known better.
Big_John
03-12-2008, 23:09
I hope that brothel has a complaints book.....that´s a terriblly overpriced piece of ass! :laugh4:there's only one way to find out.
now accepting contributions in the name of science.
Fascinating. These "transaction analysis programs" came about in 2001 (pre-9-11) because of then-NY Atty Gen Spitzer's prosecution of stock brokers and money launderers.
Hoisted on his own petard. He shudda known better.
lol pwnt :yes:
She looks okay (http://www.myspace.com/ninavenetta), but not $4300 for a brief date okay ...
-edit-
More pikkies of the lass (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0312084kristen1.html).
Big_John
03-13-2008, 04:30
She looks okay (http://www.myspace.com/ninavenetta), but not $4300 for a brief date okay ...
-edit-
More pikkies of the lass (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0312084kristen1.html).to be fair, no one on earth is worth $4300 a pop considering what a few hundred dollars can get you elsewhere. maybe it's just a vanity price. rich guys want to believe they can buy something exclusive. i'm guessing some of that expense was supposed to go to guaranteeing privacy too. i wonder how many high-profile clients the emperor's club has lost in the last couple days...
Crazed Rabbit
03-13-2008, 06:26
I dare say, Lemur, that were this a Republican, your first post wouldn't be about how prostitution should be legal. Heck, you'd probably laugh as his life is ruined, even though Spitzer is a much, much bigger hypocrite (in that he busted up prostitution rings as attorney general).
Anyway, reading of him in th Wall Street Journal, it seems like he was an arrogant jerk, the kind to bully companies with old laws that don't require criminal intent for huge fines, the kind of fellow who settles with the top management for big money then goes after the middle management and yet still loses in court.
Fitting that he should fall.
CR
I'd do her
sure I´d do her too....but I wouldn´t be willing to pay to the tune of $4300 for the experience.:laugh4:
sure I´d do her too....but I wouldn´t be willing to pay to the tune of $4300 for the experience.:laugh4:
Awwwwww, live a little :beam:
KukriKhan
03-13-2008, 12:56
sure I´d do her too....but I wouldn´t be willing to pay to the tune of $4300 for the experience.:laugh4:
That's probably only about 2,000 in real money (you know: Euro's).
Mouzafphaerre
03-13-2008, 14:05
She looks okay (http://www.myspace.com/ninavenetta), but not $4300 for a brief date okay ...
-edit-
More pikkies of the lass (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0312084kristen1.html).
.
Looks like a certain anchorslut over here. :inquisitive:
.
I dare say, Lemur, that were this a Republican, your first post wouldn't be about how prostitution should be legal.
If this were a Republican (http://www.abovethelaw.com/2008/02/in_re_the_cross_dressing_bankr.php), I seriously doubt it would have involved an adult female (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502002.html).
Crazed Rabbit
03-13-2008, 17:20
A-hardy-har-har. And we know he wasn't a congressional Dem because the girl is still alive!
Another dodge.
Anyways, $4k+ seems steep.
But it looks like he was done in by the shady bank dealings - will more governors get Swiss Accounts?
CR
She looks okay (http://www.myspace.com/ninavenetta), but not $4300 for a brief date okay ...
-edit-
More pikkies of the lass (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0312084kristen1.html).
I'd be willing to pony-up a third of that. And I'd require the GFE for sure. :smash:
I'd be willing to pony-up a third of that. And I'd require the GFE for sure. :smash:
ahahaha....the man knows the terminology I see :laugh4: :smash:
hell.....there are hotter girls than that at the local strip-club over here.....
I had the phone number of one of them in case I wanted any "extra-curricular" activities....I never did call tough.....*now where did I put that phone number* :laugh4:
HoreTore
03-13-2008, 19:56
More pikkies of the lass (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0312084kristen1.html).
Okay. I'll take my comment back. She's hawt. Very much worth a :daisy:.
ICantSpellDawg
03-13-2008, 20:02
You could date a girl who looked like that. She's nothing special.
Actually, I usually take a girl out for a month before I try to bone them, so maybe $4,000 isn't too much. $1000 is probably more reasonable.
Gets rid of all of the middle men (restaurants, movie tickets, etc.)
Vladimir
03-13-2008, 20:06
Okay. I'll take my comment back. She's hawt. Very much worth a :daisy:.
Wait a minute. We can't say a particular brand of potato chips?
Wait a minute. We can't say a particular brand of potato chips?
You want to utz her? :inquisitive:
~D
Big_John
03-13-2008, 21:07
pringles?
Just for the sake of balance, here's a well-reasoned article (http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/prostitution_and_the_law.php) about why prostitution should stay illegal.
Which is to say, laws against prostitution ultimately depend on the assumption that the state has an interest in preventing serious forms of self-abuse, and that renting out your body to satisfy another person's sexual needs is a form of self-inflicted violence serious enough to merit legal sanction irrespective of why and how you decided to become a prostitute in the first place.
ICantSpellDawg
03-13-2008, 21:21
Interestingly - I am also against selling organs and blood. "But wait", you may ask - "you can give them away for free, why not make some money on them?"
The second we allow prostitution to be legal, so will selling your organs and blood be - and vice versa.
Both demean the weak and fragile for the benefit of the powerful.
Personally, I would love to buy people, rent prostitutes, kill people who irritate me, steal from the rich and maybe even the poor, but morality and human dignity advise against these things. Since legislation IS morality (you cannot extricate one from the other) - I support bans on those things listed (among others)
Banquo's Ghost
03-13-2008, 21:28
Well, there are many free marketeers that would argue that you have the right to sell your organs (as long as the market is regulated so that people have a real choice - ie, it's not just the abject poor exploited for their kidneys) and many countries pay people for blood donation.
There are also many examples of marriage (and associated sexual services) entered into for economic gain rather than emotional need. Indeed, it would be quite easy to make an argument that the economic advantages of marriage are its bedrock as an institution.
:shrug:
ICantSpellDawg
03-13-2008, 21:32
Well, there are many free marketeers that would argue that you have the right to sell your organs (as long as the market is regulated so that people have a real choice - ie, it's not just the abject poor exploited for their kidneys) and many countries pay people for blood donation.
There are also many examples of marriage (and associated sexual services) entered into for economic gain rather than emotional need. Indeed, it would be quite easy to make an argument that the economic advantages of marriage are its bedrock as an institution.
:shrug:
We try to balance the "free market" with morality. If the market were truly free, and everything had a value, we could sell each other. Why can't you sell yourself into slavery?
I like the idea of a "free market" but it seems more like the equal of the communist utopia in practicality.
Vladimir
03-13-2008, 21:33
You want to utz her? :inquisitive:
~D
:laugh4: So east coast!
https://img412.imageshack.us/img412/8086/imagesln7.jpg
HoreTore
03-13-2008, 21:36
The second we allow prostitution to be legal, so will selling your organs and blood be - and vice versa.
What? Selling organs is legal in Nevada?
Hmmm....
I know of a lot of places where prostitution is legal(my country included), but I don't know of a single country where they are even considering making organ sale legal.
Banquo's Ghost
03-13-2008, 21:43
I know of a lot of places where prostitution is legal(my country included), but I don't know of a single country where they are even considering making organ sale legal.
Completely legal, no (not as far as I know) but quasi-legal (like prostitution, in a way) - several (http://www.newint.org/easier-english/orgsale.html).
ICantSpellDawg
03-13-2008, 21:47
What? Selling organs is legal in Nevada?
Hmmm....
I know of a lot of places where prostitution is legal(my country included), but I don't know of a single country where they are even considering making organ sale legal.
Nevada is an exception - they don't want to rock the boat.
A second is an over statement - the legitimacy is there. Arguments against organ sale are weak when prostitution is legal in my opinion. Do you agree? Why not?
:laugh4: So east coast!
I hope I'm not going to Ruffle any feathers, Herr's Gregoshi is better with the puns. Maybe they are called street Walkers for a reason? Looking at the pics, I'd give her the good ole Route 11 anyday, but not for four grand. Get me in a Kettle of trouble with the missus though, I'm sure.
:stwshame:
Vladimir
03-13-2008, 21:49
Prostitution is a rental agreement. Selling girls into prostitution would be like selling organs.
Good point. Indentured servitude and slavery will continue to be illegal no matter what, since they destroy any option for choice or free will on the part of the subjected person. On the other hand, choosing to do the bumpity-bump for some cash is not the moral equivalent of losing a major organ. I'd put it more on a par with taking up smoking. A bad choice? Sure. An unhealthy choice? Definitely. Do I think the state should step in? Nope.
ICantSpellDawg
03-13-2008, 21:54
Prostitution is a rental agreement.
So how about if someone rents someone else for 50 years?
Selling girls into prostitution would be like selling organs.
I don't think that they are alike, but I think organ sale gives a legal foothold for the other tenuously.
Good point. Indentured servitude and slavery will continue to be illegal no matter what.
That is being pragmatic... You believe that we are on a conveyor belt of progress, don't you?
It is tempting to believe that.
But I believe that It has taken a long time to get to where we are and that we are living in a speed bump on the road of world history. A road paved with unfairness and despotism. I also believe that to throw caution into the wind we destabilize the foundation of our freedom and equality and help to usher in the end of that speed bump.
But that's just me.
So how about if someone rents someone else for 50 years?
That's called marriage. :laugh4:
I don't think that they are alike, but I think organ sale gives a legal foothold for the other tenuously.
Putting aside from the possible mental health damage, diseases, and outlying psycho johns, the main problem with prostitution is not the relationship/transaction between the hooker and the john, it's the relationship between the hooker and the pimp. A prostitute without a pimp can choose to quit at anytime, not so much the case when a pimp is involved. The pimp is the "owner", not the john. Legalizing prostitution turns it into a employee-empowering enterprise.
ICantSpellDawg
03-13-2008, 22:10
Legalizing prostitution turns it into a employee-empowering enterprise.
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_Netherlands#Human_trafficking)
That is being pragmatic... You believe that we are on a conveyor belt of progress, don't you?
It is tempting to believe that.
I understand what you're saying, TuffStuff, in essence that every decision that weakens the rights and morals of our society can potentially bring us to the gulf of amorality and chaos. But take that thought to its natural conclusion, and you wind up with stasis, utter hidebound traditionalism. That's not how we got to this "speed bump," and it's not how we'll stay here.
Yes, I do think the general trend in human affairs is for the better. Go back four hundred years and you wouldn't be able to find any society that didn't tolerate, condone and codify human slavery. Now it's a freakish sin practiced in the shadows. I call that progress; global human progress.
Your hostility to the notion of legal, regulated prostitution rests heavily on the slippery slope argument, one which I don't think has a whole lot to it. Contrast your slippery slope fear with the real and problematic issue of having laws which are routinely broken by many, many citizens. I think that's bad, to be honest. It's a big part of why I'm for the legalization of marijuana, even though I never touch the stuff. Prohibition should have taught us our lesson when it comes to criminalizing activities that people find pleasureful and victimless.
By criminalizing prostitution, all we really do is guarantee that this economic activity will be:
Untaxed
Unregulated
Controlled by criminals
And we do nothing to end it. Enough. A law that is not enforceable just breeds disrespect for the law.
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_Netherlands#Human_trafficking)
Human trafficking for prostitution is illegal. A properly regulated industry should minimize it. It's rampant in countries were prostitution is illegal, so it will happen regardless.
Edit-> forgot the obvious: again the problem here (human trafficking for sex) is between the prostitute and her "employer", not the john.
Vladimir
03-13-2008, 22:42
That's called marriage. :laugh4:
Close. More like a contractual agreement with an escape clause. Much more complicated.
So how about if someone rents someone else for 50 years?
That would be more like a lease I believe. If you have to renew it every year the rates may rise.
ICantSpellDawg
03-14-2008, 00:00
Yea - I could move on the issue. I'm naturally inclined to love the idea of sex for cash (which I would never indulge in based on moral principles). As with the legalization of marijuana (which I find to be particularly destructive to ambition - but otherwise on parallel with booze).
I'm not a fan of either, but they aren't two things that I am strongly opposed to - so I wouldn't vote on the issue if given a referendum.
HoreTore
03-14-2008, 08:14
Nevada is an exception - they don't want to rock the boat.
A second is an over statement - the legitimacy is there. Arguments against organ sale are weak when prostitution is legal in my opinion. Do you agree? Why not?
That sounds like "tolerating homosexuality now means tolerating pedophiles in the future"-reasoning.
I've never understood how people are able to make such connections.
Vladimir
03-14-2008, 12:42
I know where Horetore works!
AFP (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=29265_AFP-_Eliot_Spitzer_(R)&only)
Rabbit food (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=29267_Craig_and_Vitters_GOP_Affiliation_Mentioned_100%_of_the_Time&only).
ICantSpellDawg
03-14-2008, 15:44
That sounds like "tolerating homosexuality now means tolerating pedophiles in the future"-reasoning.
I've never understood how people are able to make such connections.
Such connections can be reasonable - in this case they are not reasonable enough to warrant strong opposition on my part.
Maybe there are other reasons not to legalize prostitution (or marijuana), but I'll stand aside as mine are not good enough here.
Crazed Rabbit
03-15-2008, 07:00
The AFP said Spitzer was a Republican:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080312/img/ppl-us-politics-newyork-gov-1-4e48f9b2ad981.html
Careless error, or part of the vast liberal media conspiracy?:inquisitive:
CR
Quirinus
03-15-2008, 07:09
Seriously, I don't get how visiting a prostitute affects his ability to administrate New York City.
Proletariat
03-15-2008, 07:25
It doesn't, it's just that it's illegal and he made a career off of railing against it.
HoreTore
03-15-2008, 07:29
Careless error, or part of the vast liberal media conspiracy?:inquisitive:
In the words of Maddox:
Whiny, bitching, cry-baby conservatives love to prattle on and on about the "liberal media." To be fair, except for FOX News (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, Neil Cavuto, Steve Doocy, E.D. Hill, Brian Kilmeade, Brit Hume), Clear Channel, Laura Ingraham, Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Newsmax, G. Gordon Liddy, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, The New York Post, Sinclair Broadcast Group (WLOS13, Fox 45, WTTO21, WB49, KGAN, WICD, WICS, WCHS, WVAH, WTAT, WSTR, WSYX, WTTE, WKEF, WRGT, KDSM, WSMH, WXLV, WURN, KVWB, KFBT, WDKY, WMSN, WVTV, WEAR, WZTV, KOTH, WYZZ, WPGH, WGME, WLFL, WRLH, WUHF, KABB, WGGB, WSYT, WTTA), David Horowitz, Rupert Murdoch, PAX, and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, they're right.
It's good to see that not all Governor's wives are passive victims (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/03/mcgreevey_aide_says_he_had_sex.html). Indeed, Mr. McGreevy's wife seems to have seized the joystick of the simulation.
A former aide to James E. McGreevey said today that he had three-way sexual trysts with the former governor and his wife before he took office, challenging Dina Matos McGreevey's assertion that she was naive about her husband's sexual exploits.
The aide, Theodore Pedersen, said he and the couple even had a nickname for the weekly romps, from 1999 to 2001, that typically began with dinner at T.G.I. Friday's and ended with a threesome at McGreevey's condo in Woodbridge.
They called them "Friday Night Specials," according to Pedersen.
You go, girl!
Vladimir
03-17-2008, 12:52
Those sneaky Israelis. :laugh4:
http://www.pr-inside.com/governor-eliot-spitzer-may-have-been-r484103.htm
Those sneaky Israelis. :laugh4:
http://www.pr-inside.com/governor-eliot-spitzer-may-have-been-r484103.htm
LOL - I found the article amusing. Lets blame someone else for the breakdown of morals of the governor arguement is weak and obvious. To bad some will buy into it.
Vladimir
03-17-2008, 13:31
Those sneaky Israelis. :laugh4:
http://www.pr-inside.com/governor-eliot-spitzer-may-have-been-r484103.htm
The point of the original post was to make fun of those who are making this accusation against the Jewish state. Since the state of Israel identifies itself by its religion/cultural heritage, it is acceptable to replace Israeli with Jew.
Saves letters, think of the poor letters.
The point of the original post was to make fun of those who are making this accusation against the Jewish state. Since the state of Israel identifies itself by its religion/cultural heritage, it is acceptable to replace Israeli with Jew.
Saves letters, think of the poor letters.
Oh I understood your point - the problem is that the material will be believed by those who read that opinion piece because they will not think.
Vladimir
03-17-2008, 19:42
Oh I understood your point - the problem is that the material will be believed by those who read that opinion piece because they will not think.
Yea, sorry. Was a little shocked myself to see that "connection" and had to respond with a shock of my own.
ICantSpellDawg
03-18-2008, 03:15
Paterson admits that he and his wife have an open marriage. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/03/17/2008-03-17_gov_paterson_admits_to_sex_with_other_wo.html)
Just to get things out in the open, newly appointed Governor of New York Paterson decided to let everyone know that both he and his wife had 3 year long affairs because "things were a bit rocky at one point".
Degenerates. Why do people bother getting married at all in New York?
Couple this with the McGreevey story. And the Spitzer story. Creep me a river.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-18-2008, 06:19
Paterson admits that he and his wife have an open marriage. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/03/17/2008-03-17_gov_paterson_admits_to_sex_with_other_wo.html)
Just to get things out in the open, newly appointed Governor of New York Paterson decided to let everyone know that both he and his wife had 3 year long affairs because "things were a bit rocky at one point".
Degenerates. Why do people bother getting married at all in New York?
Couple this with the McGreevey story. And the Spitzer story. Creep me a river.
You're a gentle soul, TSM.
ICantSpellDawg
03-18-2008, 14:29
You're a gentle soul, TSM.
Heh. Never said that. Infidelity is never acceptable.
People used to be stoned for such terrible nonsense. We could at least find a middle ground between outright acceptance and execution. Like jail time.
Quirinus
03-18-2008, 15:52
Abuse of trust in a marriage is not acceptable, IMO. Normally that covers infidelity, but in Paterson's case it does seem that both parties assented to the other having extramarital relationships, so I have no problem with that at all. IMO marriage affairs are private, personal matters. The law shouldn't have anything to do with it.
I think the pronouncement is significant for another reason, though. The fact that Paterson fears scandal so much that he'd rather share his private matters pre-emptively is reprehensible. Personally, I couldn't care less if he likes dressing up as a woman in his spare time. I don't see how that affects his administrative ability as a governor and politician, as long as he doesn't actually show up at work in women's clothing.
ICantSpellDawg
03-18-2008, 16:18
Abuse of trust in a marriage is not acceptable, IMO. Normally that covers infidelity, but in Paterson's case it does seem that both parties assented to the other having extramarital relationships, so I have no problem with that at all. IMO marriage affairs are private, personal matters. The law shouldn't have anything to do with it.
I think the pronouncement is significant for another reason, though. The fact that Paterson fears scandal so much that he'd rather share his private matters pre-emptively is reprehensible. Personally, I couldn't care less if he likes dressing up as a woman in his spare time. I don't see how that affects his administrative ability as a governor and politician, as long as he doesn't actually show up at work in women's clothing.
Since marriages are private, personal matters - why does the state have anything to do with them at all?
Does anyone know what marriage means anymore? Can anyone explain?
I say that civil unions are the only things that should be acknowledged by the state - leave the moral marriages to moral institutions where they still have meaning.
Since marriages are private, personal matters - why does the state have anything to do with them at all?
Does anyone know what marriage means anymore? Can anyone explain?
I say that civil unions are the only things that should be acknowledged by the state - leave the moral marriages to moral institutions where they still have meaning.
then we would have to discuss if "moral" institutions are even moral anymore....but that´s a whole new can of worms to open up.
Anyway, reading of him in th Wall Street Journal, it seems like he was an arrogant jerk, the kind to bully companies with old laws that don't require criminal intent for huge fines, the kind of fellow who settles with the top management for big money then goes after the middle management and yet still loses in court.
Fitting that he should fall.
CR
This, IMO, is like saying a house pet is bullying a burglar. If you are looking for some objective information on this guy in particular, I would say the Wall Street Journal would be among the worst places to go. I could be wrong, but... I doubt it!
Also, his actions in taking on banks were not characteristically "democrat", so I don't know where you're coming from really. As far as I know, he had comparatively few friends on either side of the aisle.
As far as I can see, more fitting than that he should fall is that his successor is blind.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.