PDA

View Full Version : First Victim in DC Madam case


dirk digler
07-09-2007, 08:58 PM
I am sure this won't be the last for either side but I am curious if he will resign.

Senator's Number on Escort Service List
Email this Story

Jul 9, 10:31 PM (ET)

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. David Vitter, R-La., apologized Monday night for "a very serious sin in my past" after his telephone number appeared among those associated with an escort service operated by the so-called "D.C. Madam."

Vitter's spokesman, Joel Digrado, confirmed the statement in an e-mail sent to The Associated Press.

"This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible," Vitter said in the statement. "Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there - with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way."

Pitt Gorilla
07-09-2007, 09:12 PM
Hey, I know, how about not cheating?!? Then you don't need some bullsh!t apology.

recxjake
07-09-2007, 09:15 PM
Why don't they release all the names at once so everyone gets the same amount of crap?

HolmeZz
07-09-2007, 09:16 PM
Why don't they release all the names at once so everyone gets the same amount of crap?

Jake doesn't like that the first guy is a Republican.

recxjake
07-09-2007, 09:25 PM
Jake doesn't like that the first guy is a Republican.

No, I don't like selective journalism.

HolmeZz
07-09-2007, 09:33 PM
No, I don't like selective journalism.

ROFL This guy came out and apologized on his own. There's no investigative journalism here. They're just reporting that he fessed up.

WoodDraw
07-09-2007, 09:36 PM
Gold star to the first to find hypocritical quotes from him.

recxjake
07-09-2007, 09:38 PM
Gold star to the first to find hypocritical quotes from him.

In 2000, Vitter was included in a Newhouse News Service story about the strain of congressional careers on families.

His wife, Wendy, was asked by the Newhouse News reporter: If her husband was as unfaithful as former President Bill Clinton, would she be as forgiving as Hillary Clinton?

“I’m a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary,” Wendy Vitter told Newhouse News. “If he does something like that, I’m walking away with one thing, and it’s not alimony, trust me.”

“I think fear is a very good motivating factor in a marriage,” she added. “Don’t put fear down.”

HolmeZz
07-09-2007, 09:40 PM
In 2000, Vitter was included in a Newhouse News Service story about the strain of congressional careers on families.

His wife, Wendy, was asked by the Newhouse News reporter: If her husband was as unfaithful as former President Bill Clinton, would she be as forgiving as Hillary Clinton?

“I’m a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary,” Wendy Vitter told Newhouse News. “If he does something like that, I’m walking away with one thing, and it’s not alimony, trust me.”

“I think fear is a very good motivating factor in a marriage,” she added. “Don’t put fear down.”

His first mistake was marrying a psycho bitch.

WoodDraw
07-09-2007, 09:51 PM
In 2000, Vitter was included in a Newhouse News Service story about the strain of congressional careers on families.

His wife, Wendy, was asked by the Newhouse News reporter: If her husband was as unfaithful as former President Bill Clinton, would she be as forgiving as Hillary Clinton?

“I’m a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary,” Wendy Vitter told Newhouse News. “If he does something like that, I’m walking away with one thing, and it’s not alimony, trust me.”

“I think fear is a very good motivating factor in a marriage,” she added. “Don’t put fear down.”

Well you win creepiest quote of the year, at least.

dirk digler
07-09-2007, 10:06 PM
No, I don't like selective journalism.

It is not selective journalism the lady posted all of the numbers at once and then the guy confessed before he got busted.

recxjake
07-09-2007, 10:08 PM
It is not selective journalism the lady posted all of the numbers at once and then the guy confessed before he got busted.

I bet there are angry women in Washington tonight!!

dirk digler
07-09-2007, 10:18 PM
I bet there are angry women in Washington tonight!!

Yep.

Here is her website http://www.deborahjeanepalfrey.com/. It is down though everybody is probably trying to find who is on the list.

recxjake
07-09-2007, 10:40 PM
http://www.deborahjeanepalfrey.com/Jeane10c.html

Taco John
07-09-2007, 11:11 PM
Victim? So you're a victim now when you pay for sex and get busted for it?

Gracie Dean
07-09-2007, 11:15 PM
Gold star to the first to find hypocritical quotes from him.

We need a U.S. Senator who will stand up for Louisiana values, not Massachusetts’s values. I am the only Senate Candidate to coauthor the Federal Marriage Amendment; the only one fighting for its passage. I am the only candidate proposing changes to the senate rules to stop liberal obstructionists from preventing an up or down vote on issues like this, judges, energy, and on and on.” stated David Vitter.

HolmeZz
07-09-2007, 11:23 PM
http://www.nndb.com/people/866/000040746/vitter-sm.jpg

patteeu
07-10-2007, 06:29 AM
Who cares? The guy paid for sex. Big deal.

Duck Dog
07-10-2007, 07:31 AM
If you give/gave Clinton a free pass, you have to do the same for every name that surfaces on that list. Besides, you pay for sex one way or another, may as well be with a hot babe that knows whats she's doing.

Planetman
07-10-2007, 07:32 AM
Who cares? The guy paid for sex. Big deal.
I'm pretty sure his wife thought it was a big deal at the time.

BucEyedPea
07-10-2007, 07:43 AM
If you give/gave Clinton a free pass, you have to do the same for every name that surfaces on that list. Besides, you pay for sex one way or another, may as well be with a hot babe that knows whats she's doing.
You thought Hugh Grant's hooker was hot?

WoodDraw
07-10-2007, 09:01 AM
Who cares? The guy paid for sex. Big deal.

The point is that our Senators tend to be hypocritical jackoffs. If you don't care, fine. I personally don't care too much, but I'm not a member of the group who enjoys lecturing on family values and marriage.

Taco John
07-10-2007, 09:28 AM
If you give/gave Clinton a free pass, you have to do the same for every name that surfaces on that list. Besides, you pay for sex one way or another, may as well be with a hot babe that knows whats she's doing.


How should those who didn't give Clinton a free pass respond to this?

I just want to understand what the ground rules are here...

HolmeZz
07-10-2007, 11:07 AM
Who cares? The guy paid for sex. Big deal.

Yeah, it's not like it's illegal or anything.

patteeu
07-10-2007, 11:15 AM
I'm pretty sure his wife thought it was a big deal at the time.

Good point. Does his wife post here though?

HolmeZz
07-10-2007, 11:20 AM
Good point. Does his wife post here though?

Yup. Can't post news here unless it directly effects a planet member.

patteeu
07-10-2007, 11:26 AM
The point is that our Senators tend to be hypocritical jackoffs. If you don't care, fine. I personally don't care too much, but I'm not a member of the group who enjoys lecturing on family values and marriage.

Even with a gold star up for grabs, after almost 12 hours and 2 threads we still haven't found a winner, Noswad's weak effort notwithstanding. Just how much hypocrisy are we really talking about here?

Besides, having fallen short of one's own values doesn't disqualify a person from advocating those values. In fact, in some cases having experienced the wrong course can make you a better advocate for the right course.

HolmeZz
07-10-2007, 11:30 AM
Besides, having fallen short of one's own values doesn't disqualify a person from advocating those values.

But by definition it makes them a hypocrite.

The lengths you'll go to defend anyone with an R next to their name is ridiculous. Instead of spinning a web of excuses for any of these guys(Democrats of Republicans), we should be happy these guys are getting outed. I don't want idiots like this representing me and my country.

patteeu
07-10-2007, 11:31 AM
How should those who didn't give Clinton a free pass respond to this?

I just want to understand what the ground rules are here...

This guy did the opposite of what Clinton did. Clinton sexually harassed an unwilling woman and then tried to deny her a day in court by perjuring himself, this guy paid a woman for consensual sex.

patteeu
07-10-2007, 11:32 AM
Yeah, it's not like it's illegal or anything.

If prostitution something that gets you upset in general or is it only when a Republican is involved?

patteeu
07-10-2007, 11:34 AM
Yup. Can't post news here unless it directly effects a planet member.

I don't have a problem with Dirk posting it. It's the reaction of the people who are consistently outraged by this kind of thing... but only if it involves a Republican.

HolmeZz
07-10-2007, 11:34 AM
If prostitution something that gets you upset in general or is it only when a Republican is involved?

I don't want any of the people running my country to be breaking it's laws. I think that's the least I can ask from them.

HolmeZz
07-10-2007, 11:37 AM
I don't have a problem with Dirk posting it. It's the reaction of the people who are consistently outraged by this kind of thing... but only if it involves a Republican.

It's the same partisan sh*t in every topic. If you want to break the trend, you could respond to the topic for what it is, and ignore the silly comments.

Everyone knows this scandal will involve people on both sides of the aisle.

Pitt Gorilla
07-10-2007, 11:38 AM
Even with a gold star up for grabs, after almost 12 hours and 2 threads we still haven't found a winner, Noswad's weak effort notwithstanding. Just how much hypocrisy are we really talking about here?

Besides, having fallen short of one's own values doesn't disqualify a person from advocating those values. In fact, in some cases having experienced the wrong course can make you a better advocate for the right course.His point was that he is a hypocrite. I'm surprised that Kotter hasn't devoted several pages of posts to this, given his contempt for hypocrisy.

dirk digler
07-10-2007, 11:40 AM
I don't have a problem with Dirk posting it. It's the reaction of the people who are consistently outraged by this kind of thing... but only if it involves a Republican.

That is why I put "I am sure this won't be the last for either side" at the top.

I know a Dem will eventually show up on the list and I hope both sides of the isle will condemn them as well

patteeu
07-10-2007, 11:41 AM
But by definition it makes them a hypocrite.


No it doesn't. This guy may be a hypocrite, although so far I haven't seen any indication of it. It's not hypocritical to oppose gay marriage and, secretly, frequent prostitutes at the same time.

The lengths you'll go to defend anyone with an R next to their name is ridiculous. Instead of spinning a web of excuses for any of these guys(Democrats of Republicans), we should be happy these guys are getting outed. I don't want idiots like this representing me and my country.

What a hypocrite you are. I'm not the person for whom the R next to the name is important here. That person would be you. I don't recall ever failing to defend a democrat for hiring a prostitute.

patteeu
07-10-2007, 11:43 AM
I don't want any of the people running my country to be breaking it's laws. I think that's the least I can ask from them.

That's a reasonable position to take. If only you could do it when a democrat's transgression is at issue.

patteeu
07-10-2007, 11:44 AM
His point was that he is a hypocrite. I'm surprised that Kotter hasn't devoted several pages of posts to this, given his contempt for hypocrisy.

A hypocrite based on what? If you've got a revealing quote, Wooddraw will give you a gold star.

HolmeZz
07-10-2007, 11:49 AM
That's a reasonable position to take. If only you could do it when a democrat's transgression is at issue.

Unfortunately for you...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=164046

HolmeZz
07-10-2007, 11:58 AM
Ah, I see why Jake was complaining about 'selective journalism'. Vitter's a big Giuliani supporter. ROFL

patteeu
07-10-2007, 12:10 PM
Unfortunately for you...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=164046

Unfortunately for you, that doesn't prove what you're trying to prove. Showing that you opposed one democrat who is alleged to have committed an egregious crime doesn't really tell us much about how you'd treat a democrat who committed a petty crime like, for example, hiring a prostitute.

pikesome
07-10-2007, 12:20 PM
This guy did the opposite of what Clinton did. Clinton sexually harassed an unwilling woman and then tried to deny her a day in court by perjuring himself, this guy paid a woman for consensual sex.

Don't forget the sex with an employee while on the clock, in his office. Even totally consensual that's a major lapse.

HolmeZz
07-10-2007, 12:22 PM
Unfortunately for you, that doesn't prove what you're trying to prove. Showing that you opposed one democrat who is alleged to have committed an egregious crime doesn't really tell us much about how you'd treat a democrat who committed a petty crime like, for example, hiring a prostitute.

You said I couldn't take the position of "I don't want any of the people running my country to be breaking it's laws" in regards to a Democratic transgression. Clearly I have.

You can change the debate to how serious the crimes are because you're a partisan hack, but it really has nothing to do with the original point. I'll be saying the same thing about whatever Democrat's name comes up in this bust. It's not like I have to defend them. I don't belong to their friggin' party.

patteeu
07-10-2007, 12:40 PM
You said I couldn't take the position of "I don't want any of the people running my country to be breaking it's laws" in regards to a Democratic transgression. Clearly I have.

You can change the debate to how serious the crimes are because you're a partisan hack, but it really has nothing to do with the original point. I'll be saying the same thing about whatever Democrat's name comes up in this bust. It's not like I have to defend them. I don't belong to their friggin' party.

I guess you misunderstood. You said you don't want any of your politicians breaking laws. Presumably that would include traffic violations, hiring prostitutes, violating zoning ordinances, and other minor infractions, but your only example is from a politician who sold himself to the highest bidder. That's not a very convincing case. Especially given the lack of objectivity you demonstrate on a regular basis around here.

FWIW, I don't belong to anyone's friggin' party, so I'm not sure what your point is by bringing your lack of official affiliation up. You are at least as much of a partisan hack as I am. I can't really remember the last time you sided with Republicans over the democrats. By contrast, I've sided with democrats on quite a few occasions here.

HolmeZz
07-10-2007, 12:49 PM
I guess you misunderstood. You said you don't want any of your politicians breaking laws. Presumably that would include traffic violations, hiring prostitutes, violating zoning ordinances, and other minor infractions, but your only example is from a politician who sold himself to the highest bidder. That's not a very convincing case. Especially given the lack of objectivity you demonstrate on a regular basis around here.

I don't consider prostitution the equivalent of a traffic violation. Perhaps I have a bit more in terms of values than you do.

I already said I'd think the same thing of whatever Democrats comes up in this.

I can't really remember the last time you sided with Republicans over the democrats.

Well there's the last time I voted.

BucEyedPea
07-10-2007, 12:52 PM
You can change the debate to how serious the crimes are because you're a partisan hack,
You just used Ad Hominem !!!!

...and on another debater not even at least on whether someone's anti-social, criminal personality profile contributed to their anti-social, criminal ideas even though those ideas are covered under some politically respectable terminology.


Just some blowback! :harumph:

HolmeZz
07-10-2007, 12:53 PM
You just used Ad Hominem !!!!

...and on another debater not even at least on whether someone's anti-social, criminal personality profile contributed to their anti-social, criminal ideas even though those ideas are covered under some politically respectable terminology.


Just some blowback! :harumph:

I called him a hack for trying to change the subject. That's not a ****ing ad hominem.

WoodDraw
07-10-2007, 12:59 PM
Even with a gold star up for grabs, after almost 12 hours and 2 threads we still haven't found a winner, Noswad's weak effort notwithstanding. Just how much hypocrisy are we really talking about here?

Besides, having fallen short of one's own values doesn't disqualify a person from advocating those values. In fact, in some cases having experienced the wrong course can make you a better advocate for the right course.

He received a 100% rating from the Christian Coalition for advocating family values. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but prostitution would seem to go against that. Not too many in the family values court would take up the prostituion defense. Maybe he was one of the few, but I'm assuming not.

And I'm not sure where all these instances of Democrats not admonishing their own party. Can you provide some examples?

BucEyedPea
07-10-2007, 01:00 PM
I called him a hack for trying to change the subject. That's not a ****ing ad hominem.
That doesn't change anything....and YOU said I didn't understand it.
Then just say it's changing the subject. I, however, do not see being able to originate another angle on any topic, such as regards the seriousness of the crime, as being irrelevent to this topic. That's his pov on this crime. You were unable to articulate an argument for it.


So what party do you belong to?

PunkinDrublic
07-10-2007, 01:06 PM
Too bad he's such a hypocrit. I'd be more likely to vote for someone because they had sex with hookers.

HolmeZz
07-10-2007, 01:12 PM
That doesn't change anything....and YOU said I didn't understand it.
Then just say it's changing the subject. I, however, do not see being able to originate another angle on any topic, such as regards the seriousness of the crime, as being irrelevent to this topic. That's his pov on this crime. You were unable to articulate an argument for it.

His POV on the seriousness is completely irrelevant. He said I'd never take that position on a Democratic transgression. I had in the link I gave, and I am when I say I'll think the same of any Dems who get busted in this escort ring.

Now, because I've completely disproved his assertion, he wants to change the topic and get into a debate about the seriousness of the two crimes(despite the fact I said I'd think the same of any Dem who gets busted in this scandal), which is only him trying to justify prostitution. I'm not going to debate him on the seriousness(which is clearly worse in the case of William Jefferson) when it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I have admonished Democratic transgressions, and will continue to do so(like when one of them gets busted in the prostitution ring).

So what party do you belong to?

I don't belong to any party.

BucEyedPea
07-10-2007, 01:15 PM
I'm done with it HolmZz....I don't really care.
Just a chance for a little blowback! :evil:

Duck Dog
07-10-2007, 01:20 PM
You thought Hugh Grant's hooker was hot?


No, not all. Not Eddy Murphy's either. :Lin:

Baby Lee
07-10-2007, 01:23 PM
Perhaps I have a bit more in terms of values than you do.
Welcome to Larry Flynt's radar. ROFL

patteeu
07-11-2007, 05:51 AM
I don't consider prostitution the equivalent of a traffic violation. Perhaps I have a bit more in terms of values than you do.

Haha

I thought you didn't want to "change" the debate to how serious the crimes were? That was just 2 posts ago and here you are, doing just that. You're all kinds of hypocrite, aren't you?

patteeu
07-11-2007, 05:56 AM
He received a 100% rating from the Christian Coalition for advocating family values. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but prostitution would seem to go against that. Not too many in the family values court would take up the prostituion defense. Maybe he was one of the few, but I'm assuming not.

Assume what you want, but have you found anyone to give a gold star to yet? Should be easy since we're dealing with such a self-righteous bible-beating hypocrite, right? Now that you (and others) have assumed guilt, with enough work you might be able to find the evidence to support your verdict.

And I'm not sure where all these instances of Democrats not admonishing their own party. Can you provide some examples?

What are you talking about?

patteeu
07-11-2007, 06:02 AM
His POV on the seriousness is completely irrelevant. He said I'd never take that position on a Democratic transgression. I had in the link I gave, and I am when I say I'll think the same of any Dems who get busted in this escort ring.

Now, because I've completely disproved his assertion, he wants to change the topic and get into a debate about the seriousness of the two crimes(despite the fact I said I'd think the same of any Dem who gets busted in this scandal), which is only him trying to justify prostitution. I'm not going to debate him on the seriousness(which is clearly worse in the case of William Jefferson) when it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I have admonished Democratic transgressions, and will continue to do so(like when one of them gets busted in the prostitution ring).

My head is spinning. I just read a post of yours where you were trying to debate me "on the seriousness" so which is it?

I remain skeptical about whether you would have ever been critical of a democrat for hiring a prostitute. I'm sure that now that I've made this accusation, you will be sure to level a token criticism at the next democrat so accused though. But that won't change my opinion of you.

WoodDraw
07-11-2007, 08:59 AM
Assume what you want, but have you found anyone to give a gold star to yet? Should be easy since we're dealing with such a self-righteous bible-beating hypocrite, right? Now that you (and others) have assumed guilt, with enough work you might be able to find the evidence to support your verdict.

"I think Livingston's stepping down makes a very powerful argument that Clinton should resign as well and move beyond this mess."

-- Then-Rep. David Vitter (R-LA), quoted by Think Progress, after replacing Rep. Bob Livingston (R-LA) who "abruptly resigned after disclosures of numerous affairs" in 1998.

http://politicalwire.com/

ASSUMED guilty? He came right out and admitted guilt. Unless this is the worst coverup ever, I think it's safe to 'assume' here. Again, I just find it ironic that yet another family values conservative has been found to be a prick in real life. Not a big deal, just ironic.

Amnorix
07-11-2007, 09:17 AM
If prostitution something that gets you upset in general or is it only when a Republican is involved?

I only get annoyed when it's a "family values" cheerleader who hypocritically does it. Other than that, I don't care. Even with that, I barely care.

BucEyedPea
07-11-2007, 09:34 AM
ASSUMED guilty? He came right out and admitted guilt.
As I've said all along this stuff is standard operating behavior in the political classes inside DC by both parties. To me, it's a sympton of other ethic's issues in DC where they feel they're above the law or can't be trusted as they can't keep a simple vow in their marriages. The word for this is "cheat."

The one difference, which I feel you highlight here, is that the Pub, usually, admits he did something "wrong" ( for purpose of discussion here I'll call it that as he was a family values guy). I know of no Dem who has admitted such when caught. I have seen Dems claim they've done nothing wrong though, even if still illegal. IMO it highlights the scale of values on either side.

I don't really like it when a professed family values guy does this and then gets caught. On the other hand, the fact that he does admit it was wrong shows he still believed in those values but had fallen from them. Or it appears so. It could always be a show for his constituents....afterall he's still a politician and may even be a lawyer to boot.

Logical
07-11-2007, 09:45 AM
I know I am coming into the thread late but why should he resign over something so unimportant?

BucEyedPea
07-11-2007, 09:46 AM
Some good points. Although, legal prostitution would not make it ethical either, it would still be adultery and cheating in a marriage. Those things still go to trust issues, hurt others and break up the family unit which is the smallest governing unit in our society. What next? Make cheating okay too?

Logical
07-11-2007, 09:48 AM
Some good points. Although, legal prostitution would not make it ethical either, it would still be adultery and cheating in a marriage. Those things still go to trust issues, hurt others and break up the family unit which is the smallest governing unit in our society. What next? Make cheating okay too?

I don't think it Senator or Rep needs to resign over cheating either.

BucEyedPea
07-11-2007, 09:53 AM
I don't think it Senator or Rep needs to resign over cheating either.
I got it. I wasn't addressing resignation. That's up to them.
I was also responding to WD ( not that you can't participate) when your post intervened between ours.

patteeu
07-11-2007, 10:55 AM
"I think Livingston's stepping down makes a very powerful argument that Clinton should resign as well and move beyond this mess."

-- Then-Rep. David Vitter (R-LA), quoted by Think Progress, after replacing Rep. Bob Livingston (R-LA) who "abruptly resigned after disclosures of numerous affairs" in 1998.

http://politicalwire.com/

ASSUMED guilty? He came right out and admitted guilt. Unless this is the worst coverup ever, I think it's safe to 'assume' here. Again, I just find it ironic that yet another family values conservative has been found to be a prick in real life. Not a big deal, just ironic.

The "assumed guilty" comment was about being a hypocrite not about being involved with a prostitute.

WoodDraw
07-11-2007, 11:01 AM
The "assumed guilty" comment was about being a hypocrite not about being involved with a prostitute.

So you think he is just a moral, family guy who just happens to cheat on his wife and enjoy the use of prostitutes?

patteeu
07-11-2007, 11:14 AM
So you think he is just a moral, family guy who just happens to cheat on his wife and enjoy the use of prostitutes?

I think that if he was just a moral, family guy who spoke out against domestic violence, abortion-on-demand, gay marriage, and no fault divorce and who spoke out in favor of tax relief for families, faith based initiatives, and school vouchers, but who never spoke about prostitution or marital fidelity, he wouldn't qualify as a hypocrite.

At the time that I accused you of assuming his guilt (on the hypocrisy charge), no one had provided a qualified response to your call for hypocritical quotes.

HolmeZz
07-11-2007, 11:49 AM
Haha

I thought you didn't want to "change" the debate to how serious the crimes were? That was just 2 posts ago and here you are, doing just that. You're all kinds of hypocrite, aren't you?

There was no debate. I'm just responding to you lumping all the crimes into the same bin. You asked an unrelated question about what crimes constituted 'serious' to me.

HolmeZz
07-11-2007, 11:54 AM
I remain skeptical about whether you would have ever been critical of a democrat for hiring a prostitute. I'm sure that now that I've made this accusation, you will be sure to level a token criticism at the next democrat so accused though. But that won't change my opinion of you.

ROFL

I guess I can't win then, eh?

WoodDraw
07-11-2007, 01:16 PM
I think that if he was just a moral, family guy who spoke out against domestic violence, abortion-on-demand, gay marriage, and no fault divorce and who spoke out in favor of tax relief for families, faith based initiatives, and school vouchers, but who never spoke about prostitution or marital fidelity, he wouldn't qualify as a hypocrite.

At the time that I accused you of assuming his guilt (on the hypocrisy charge), no one had provided a qualified response to your call for hypocritical quotes.

We have opposing views of hypocrisy. Those who cheat on their wives, go to prostitutes, and then claim it was all a private matter handled between God and his family no longer can credibly lecture others on their personal choices. Whether he commented directly on prostitution or infidelity is irrelevant to the larger issue of the values he spoke for towards great political success.

Baby Lee
07-11-2007, 01:40 PM
We have opposing views of hypocrisy. Those who cheat on their wives, go to prostitutes, and then claim it was all a private matter handled between God and his family no longer can credibly lecture others on their personal choices. Whether he commented directly on prostitution or infidelity is irrelevant to the larger issue of the values he spoke for towards great political success.
I'm a fat dude. Do I relinquish all rights to observe that the Baconator isn't the ideal lunchtime repast?

WoodDraw
07-11-2007, 02:53 PM
I'm a fat dude. Do I relinquish all rights to observe that the Baconator isn't the ideal lunchtime repast?

You can do whatever you like, but if you go around lecturing all the Baconator eaters on the importance of eating healthy, your going to look like a hypocritical idiot.

Baby Lee
07-11-2007, 03:26 PM
You can do whatever you like, but if you go around lecturing all the Baconator eaters on the importance of eating healthy, your going to look like a hypocritical idiot.
My shortcomings aside, does it make my advice wrong, by dint of messenger?

WoodDraw
07-11-2007, 04:33 PM
My shortcomings aside, does it make my advice wrong, by dint of messenger?

No, there is neither an assumption of right nor wrong with hypocrisy.

Baby Lee
07-11-2007, 05:09 PM
No, there is neither an assumption of right nor wrong with hypocrisy.
And the hypocrisy of the messenger has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the message he delivers.

WoodDraw
07-11-2007, 06:10 PM
And the hypocrisy of the messenger has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the message he delivers.

Sure, I don't deny my message is political. I'm sure my beliefs on the conservative social agenda can be guessed by everyone in this thread. Let me give another example. If a Senator claims to be fiscally conservative, but yet constantly votes for pork projects that doesn't make his underlying belief wrong; it just makes him a political hack. If your going to advocate something, you sure as hell better do your best to model it or you're nothing but a cheap political publicity whore. My anger is directed solely at this Senator. He claims to represent Christian and family values but yet obviously has no respect for those very values. He's a cheap excuse for a leader, and I'd be ashamed to have him representing my state.

dirk digler
07-11-2007, 07:18 PM
And the hypocrisy of the messenger has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the message he delivers.

Yeah but doesn't that pretty much neuter his message?

I mean honestly if a huge fat guy\girl came up to you and started preaching to you about eating healthy all the while chomping on a Baconator how much would you pay attention to that person and think he is a credible person to listen to?

HolmeZz
07-11-2007, 07:23 PM
And the hypocrisy of the messenger has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the message he delivers.

The message isn't being questioned. It just makes the messenger a hypocrite.

ClevelandBronco
07-11-2007, 07:23 PM
Yeah but doesn't that pretty much neuter his message?

I mean honestly if a huge fat guy\girl came up to you and started preaching to you about eating healthy all the while chomping on a Baconator how much would you pay attention to that person and think he is a credible person to listen to?

Bad example. It still has nothing to do with whether the message is true.

HolmeZz
07-11-2007, 07:26 PM
Maybe I missed something, but whether the message is true or not has nothing to do with whether someone's a hypocrite.

You can say marital infidelity is wrong and then go cheat on your wife. It makes you a hypocrite, but it doesn't mean marital infidelity is right.

dirk digler
07-11-2007, 07:28 PM
Bad example. It still has nothing to do with whether the message is true.

The message maybe true but are you really going to listen to somebody like that and find that person credible?

Of course not.

dirk digler
07-11-2007, 07:33 PM
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Hustler publisher Larry Flynt took credit Wednesday for exposing Sen. David Vitter as a client of a D.C. prostitute, saying he did so to uncover the Louisiana Republican’s hypocrisy.

“I very seldom get a chance to get a big one, and sometimes I have to go bottom feeding,” Flynt said at a late afternoon news conference. “We have a criteria, and that is if someone is living a life contrary to the way they are advocating — their personal life — than they become fair game.”

Vitter admitted Monday that his telephone number turned up in the phone records of an escort service run by Deborah Jeane Palfrey, though he did not say he had sex with a prostitute. The records date from before he won his Senate seat in 2004.

On Tuesday, Hustler magazine claimed credit for exposing Vitter’s connection to the “D.C. Madam,” saying he confessed after a journalist reported finding the senator’s number in the escort service’s phone records.

In Wednesday’s press conference, Flynt said, “I don’t want a man like that legislating for me, especially in the areas of morality.”

Vitter heavily campaigned on social values in his 2004 Senate race and was one of the top backers of a failed constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage.

The Louisiana Republican issued a statement Monday night calling his contact with Palfrey a “very serious sin,” but has since not been seen in public.

ClevelandBronco
07-11-2007, 07:39 PM
The message maybe true but are you really going to listen to somebody like that and find that person credible?

Of course not.

I'm able to separate them.

BucEyedPea
07-11-2007, 07:41 PM
The message maybe true but are you really going to listen to somebody like that and find that person credible?

Of course not.
Not usually. On the other hand, fat people have experimented with many diets.
They can pass on a lot of info about such diets as a result. The fact that they failed at them, may not often be the diet but their inability to follow it.Same idea.

Baby Lee
07-11-2007, 07:46 PM
The message isn't being questioned. It just makes the messenger a hypocrite.
The point is that our Senators tend to be hypocritical jackoffs. If you don't care, fine. I personally don't care too much, but I'm not a member of the group who enjoys lecturing on family values and marriage.
Can't say for sure he was questioning the message, does sound like the message irritated him.

The issue of hypocrisy raises the issue of the merit of the claim only in isolated instances that guy].

Unless you're ready to take the position that the rich can't advocate for the poor without relinquishing their riches to that end first, or the ecologist can't advocate for environmentalism until he walks everywhere, and lives in a yirt, totally off the grid, individual hypocrisy is just a sideline gossip point.

dirk digler
07-11-2007, 07:46 PM
I'm able to separate them.

So do you take the fat guy's advice or do you ignore it because he is a hypocrite and not credible?

Baby Lee
07-11-2007, 07:49 PM
So do you take the fat guy's advice or do you ignore it because he is a hypocrite and not credible?
I'm not a member of the group who enjoys lecturing on tasty burgers. :p

Edited to clarify, the Baconator is utterly repellant to me. Like bacon, like cheese, like beef, . . . but that much and no lettuce or pickles or nothing, just a big greasy softball? no thanks.

ClevelandBronco
07-11-2007, 07:49 PM
So do you take the fat guy's advice or do you ignore it because he is a hypocrite and not credible?

I take the fat guy's advice and kick back with the knowledge that I'm going to be healthier than him.

dirk digler
07-11-2007, 07:51 PM
I'm not a member of the group who enjoys lecturing on tasty burgers. :p

LMAO

Me either.

Baby Lee
07-11-2007, 07:54 PM
LMAO

Me either.
Must say, never found you unpleasant, but the advent of Seth's bemused visage makes you one of the more pleasant posters [in my mental image] around. :thumb:

Can't stay mad at a mug that dorky!!

You could probably go all 'Hamas' on us, and I'd see your avvy and saw "awwww. . . you."

dirk digler
07-11-2007, 07:55 PM
I take the fat guy's advice and kick back with the knowledge that I'm going to be healthier than him.

Honestly?

Cmon now, my response would be hysterical laughing followed by telling the fat ass to take his burger and shove it up his ass and then come back with that BS when he has lost those 300lbs.

dirk digler
07-11-2007, 08:01 PM
Must say, never found you unpleasant, but the advent of Seth's bemused visage makes you one of the more pleasant posters [in my mental image] around. :thumb:

Can't stay mad at a mug that dorky!!

You could probably go all 'Hamas' on us, and I'd see your avvy and saw "awwww. . . you."

Thanks. I always enjoy your posts as well though I am not even close to being as witty as you are.

Seth has alot more hair than I do that's for sure.

ClevelandBronco
07-11-2007, 08:11 PM
Honestly?

Cmon now, my response would be hysterical laughing followed by telling the fat ass to take his burger and shove it up his ass and then come back with that BS when he has lost those 300lbs.

Yeah. Honestly.

I'm thinking that you just might be able to learn something about the rewards of following the law from a guy who's doing time. A meth head just might be able to offer some valuable advice about not busting out the pipe.

NewChief
07-11-2007, 08:15 PM
Unless you're ready to take the position that the rich can't advocate for the poor without relinquishing their riches to that end first, or the ecologist can't advocate for environmentalism until he walks everywhere, and lives in a yirt, totally off the grid, individual hypocrisy is just a sideline gossip point.

Your examples try to make a polar argument (either you're green or not) out of what is a continuum (there are a variety of ways to "live green" outside of walking everywhere). This case, though, is pretty polar. He preached the sanctity of marriage and family values, he violated the sanctity and sullied those values.

That being said, I think many people (myself included) were pretty put off by Al Gore when news of his McMansion with the carbon footprint of a T-Rex came out. His house was entirely antithetical to what he preaches, making him a freaking hypocrite as far as I'm concerned.

Finally, I don't think that this case reflects poorly on the guy's message. It doesn't sully his message. It does, however, totally negate the messenger.