- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
- Messages
- 28,134
- Reaction score
- 15,023
- Location
- Canada's Capital
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
But yeah, Clinton's sexual exploits were not a proud moment for him - and painful moments for his family. But as long as he wasn't screwing a kid or giving away government secrets - it was none of my concern. My concern was how this country faired under his Presidency. Pretty damned well. And frankly, he likely could be elected again if rules allowed.
Another unsubstantiated claim, my friend?
I do believe the stigma of pre-marital hetereosexual sex is far less of a burden on males than it is on females. But it is still sexual abuse and exploitation even if the teacher is a 21-year old female. And by admitting that we don't hear about those cases as much, you are kind of proving my point.
So a male teacher/female student relationship has less of a mental impact than a femal teacher/female student relationship? Without the stats to back it up, I find it really hard to believe. :shrug:
That's fair - I don't like anyone preaching to me about anything to do with the personal lives of individuals. But speaking of how you choose to live and what you believe in personally is fine, and strangely expected in American politics. Here in Canada, we don't give a rats ass what religion or personal life choices a politician makes but seems in America, a politicians personal life is dissected completely and held up for criticism. Here, the spouse of the Prime Minister is virtually invisible, unlike your First Lady. You seem to want to elect a "family", not hire someone for a job. When you do that, people tend to promote their family as a model and then they get in trouble.
We're apparently talking about two different things. I understood you were referring to "preying" - clearly you're not. That's fine, carry on.
Another wonderful family values politician....
Another wonderful family values politician....
They are ridiculous laws and to enforce them with such fervor on what amounts to technicalities is a hatchet job. It's got legs as a story since it involves the formerly piwerful and money with hints of sex or at least the implication. But the bottom line is it was his money, he can spend it any way he wants, and it isn't anybody else's business.No, those laws are crime-fighting tools. He intentionally evaded them. and, lo and behold. What have we here? Blackmail, extortion, tax evasion, accusations of child abuse. Had he just paid the guy and either paid the requisite gift tax OR given the guy a 1099, no harm no foul. Every business person in the United States is aware of those IRS regulations. Oh, wait if he'd done all that, his blackmailer would probably have come forward. Needless to say, everyone's in trouble now...
Maybe conservatives shouldn't set the bar that high. After all, they're human... no?
My favourite is thinking that abstinence education is a perfectly viable way to curb unwanted pregnancies and the spread of disease. History has taught us otherwise. Yet the moralistic drumming from the Conservtive side still beats.
..... Uh, yes. Being human and making mistakes, however, doesn't obviate the fact that they were mistakes. If it turns out Hastert did, in fact, sexually molest some kid, then it's not like we should collectively shrug our shoulders and say "well, everyone get's one screwup" or "well, we don't want to pretend like we haven't screwed up ourselves", the wrongness of the act is independent of the fact that he (and others) are tempted to it.
Conservative Christians set the bar high recognizing that we are going to fail to meet it. That's sort of central to the belief system, in fact, the acceptance that we are sinners in need of a savior.
There is evidence for both arguments of that one, and I've seen competing studies, both by groups with intended results.
From the conservative/Christian perspective, however, the question of whether or not a certain percentage of teenagers are going to have sex is immaterial to the question of whether or not you should tell them not to. It would be like changing the "Don't Text and Drive" campaign to the "Hey, while texting and driving, try to make sure to glance at the road every few seconds" crusade.
THere are different kinds of conservatives in the U.S. The social conservatives want to enforce their morality by force of law.
They are ridiculous laws and to enforce them with such fervor on what amounts to technicalities is a hatchet job. It's got legs as a story since it involves the formerly piwerful and money with hints of sex or at least the implication. But the bottom line is it was his money, he can spend it any way he wants, and it isn't anybody else's business.
So, we have to prove we're not breaking laws when we spend our money? How is that not prior restraint?He certainly can. All he had to do was report it as the amount might be subject to gift tax not to mention money laundering.
So, we have to prove we're not breaking laws when we spend our money? How is that not prior restraint?
So, we have to prove we're not breaking laws when we spend our money? How is that not prior restraint?
Certainly not by presuming guilt and requiring the accussed to prove they are not breaking any laws.How would you combat money laundering and enforce the tax laws?
Certainly not by presuming guilt and requiring the accussed to prove they are not breaking any laws.
The reporting requirement is absurd, law or not. The way to enforce anti-terrorism or anti-mafia laws is to get warrants for bank records when they are warranted, just like the way to get evidence of misdoings via internet/telephony is to get specific warrants for specific cases rather than collect everything.That is not an answer, merely a deflection. We have money laundering laws, estate & gift tax laws. How would you enforce those laws among others like sending money to terrorists and other regimes under sanction? Hastert did nothing wrong by removing his own money from the banks, all he had to do was report it. He then compounded the situation by lying to the FBI.
Isn't this provision of the Patriot Act that Hastert is being charged under what he supervised the passage of to begin with?
I think it's ironic that what caused him to be caught was the fact he withdrew money from 15 different banks in 10,000 dollar increments to pay the hush money, and because of the Patriotic Act, the banks could communicate with each other, and the large amount of cash withdrawn was a tip off. Some of those withdraws were labels as 'suspicious', which triggered an investigation.
Was there ever any doubt? Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, pays $3.5M to somebody they didn't ass rape.
$3.5 million dollars is insane. But being a lobbyist that is small change.
If one is a creationist, why oh why did your God make the human orgasm more powerful that meth. Clinton succumb to it. Even Einstein is reportedly had a little romp with Marilyn Monroe.
The only difference between Meth and Sexual Affairs is that with Sexual Affairs you usually don't lose your teeth.
I don't remember any Dems being child molesters...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?