Comments on: DC Madam does it!

DC Madam does it!

krash2fast — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:40:09 -0800

single link newsfilter FPP: (hopefully not a DP!) She did it! (cache) Deborah Jean Palfrey (aka the DC Madam) has released the phone records. Get them before they disappear!

By: krash2fast

krash2fast — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:40:28 -0800

Wonder what net traffic to reverse phone directories looks like right about now?

By: KokuRyu

KokuRyu — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:44:06 -0800

All those porn files are in zip format. I'm not opening them.

By: look busy

look busy — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:49:45 -0800

Already down, at least for me right now.

By: fandango_matt

fandango_matt — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:52:05 -0800

Flagged as farking lame.

By: Salmonberry

Salmonberry — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:53:05 -0800

Works here. Just tiff files of the records, really.

By: The Deej

The Deej — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:53:17 -0800

It's there for me. But holy hell-on-a-water-flume, I am not about to start downloading random zip file to read phone logs. Someone else do it, and paste in the juicy parts.

By: krash2fast

krash2fast — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:57:56 -0800

They are zipped tiff files, and yes, it's a pain in the ass. But I couldn't let the fucking actual phone logs go without a mention on the blue. My apologies to those like fandango_matt who think evidence that can incriminate hundreds of the criminal vultures in Washington is "farking lame."

By: H-Bar

H-Bar — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:58:50 -0800

Is there any explanation for the gaps in those timeframes?

By: Mayor Curley

Mayor Curley — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:59:26 -0800

This would be great if I were Rain Man and had memorized the fucking phone book. Random phone numbers and the large cities they're in are meaningless.

By: nervousfritz

nervousfritz — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:02:26 -0800

If you don't care about it, yesterday's column at linkfilter may help you to be outraged.

By: meta_eli

meta_eli — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:02:45 -0800

Johns are "criminal vultures"? I imagine them more like sad, old men.

By: The Deej

The Deej — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:03:14 -0800

My apologies to those like fandango_matt who think evidence that can incriminate hundreds of the criminal vultures in Washington is "farking lame." posted by krash2fast Well, I'm just pissed cuz my interface does not even have a "farking lame" flag. I heard that the reason we didn't hear much about these before, after tons of buildup, was that there were no big names that anyone cared about, and the biggest names were media folks. "Nothing to see here... honest! Nope, nothing at all! Trust me, I'm the media!"

By: procrastination

procrastination — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:03:29 -0800

I would also point out that these numbers are from 5+ years ago. Don't jump to conclusions that the same person still has the same phone number.

By: Clave

Clave — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:05:12 -0800

There are some pretty big gaps in those records. All the Sprint records from 1997 and 2001, ATT Q4 2000 and Q1 2003. Maybe they're in there somewhere -- the file naming scheme isn't really very friendly.

By: caddis

caddis — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:07:39 -0800

This would be great if I were Rain Man and had memorized the fucking phone book. Random phone numbers and the large cities they're in are meaningless. posted by Mayor Curley at 9:59 PM on July 9 [+] [!] Well, some folks might put in some effort, say like reporters. Jeeez.

By: exogenous

exogenous — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:13:07 -0800

If your computer does not have a "pkunzip.exe" file to open these records, then you need to download a free version from PKWare. What is this, 1985?

By: Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese

Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:13:52 -0800

Holy shit I thought I gave her my cell number.

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:15:17 -0800

Holy crap! Looks like she was fucking someone at Domino's Pizza!

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:22:03 -0800

_{DAVID VITTER

For immediate release

July 9, 2007

Vitter Issues Statement

U.S. Sen. David Vitter made the following statement today about his telephone number being on the old phone records of Pamela Martin and Associates prior to his running for the U.S. Senate. He respectfully requests that the statement be used in full without editing or paraphrasing.

"This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible. 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," Vitter said.}

By: krash2fast

krash2fast — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:23:24 -0800

Johns are "criminal vultures"? I imagine them more like sad, old men. posted by meta_eli at 10:02 PM on July 9 [+] [!] Not most of them. I was referring to the assholes that are "elected" (not too sure since HAVA) to represent the people of this country and who regularly work directly against the interests of the people. I'm all for hanging the bastards on any hook we can find. If it's endangering national security by opening oneself up to the possibility of blackmail, fine. Lock 'em up.

By: desjardins

desjardins — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:25:10 -0800

If you don't care about it, yesterday's column at linkfilter may help you to be outraged. [nervousfritz] Not really. What does this case have to do with street prostitution?

By: jason's_planet

jason's_planet — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:31:31 -0800

The site has crashed.

By: nomisxid

nomisxid — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:32:43 -0800

I so wish you'd used a coral cache link, so we could still see something...

By: fandango_matt

fandango_matt — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:33:16 -0800

posted by desjardins What does this case have to do with street prostitution? Misplaced outrage.

By: zardoz

zardoz — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:33:58 -0800

This post: points for breaking the news first. Minus points for having to download random files to get to the meat of the story. I'll wait until the journalists working on this piece right now have distilled it to something more manageable to look into.

By: puke & cry

puke & cry — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:36:07 -0800

The cache still works, as far as I can see.

By: ericb

ericb — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:36:47 -0800

Accused D.C. Madam Releases Phone Records

“The phone records of the accused D.C. Madam have been posted online and are available for public viewing. Deborah Jeane Palfrey's attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley, tells WTOP he changed his plan of distributing the information -- which includes calls from 1994-2006 -- only to journalists after he learned of one organization's plan to post the numbers in their entirety. Sibley says after he began distributing CDs with the information, he was alerted that their security coding wasn't sophisticated enough to prevent hacking, and it would be easy to make someone's number appear on the list even if it hadn't been originally. When he initially offered the records to journalists and bloggers last week, it was with the condition that the information would not be posted in its entirety. ‘I sent out 54 discs with the records on them,’ Sibley says. ‘[Monday] morning, we got calls and emails saying there wasn't any security on the coding and the numbers were going to be all over the place anyway. I got one email that said the agreement isn't enforceable, and that group intended to release the records for free.’ Sibley wouldn't identify the group further than saying it was a D.C.-based organization. When he initially offered the records, Sibley pledged he wouldn't disclose which news organizations received copies. ‘It's an evolution from how we planned to put the numbers out,’ he says. ‘Our original thought of coding each disc so we'd know who violated the agreement wasn't sophisticated enough. It's so easy to accuse somebody, and once you do that, the retraction is useless.’ Posting the numbers online does leave him open for criticism, but Sibley says in balancing the evils, this was the correct decision. ‘That's why we're putting out the numbers, so there's one official list, and any list that's different can be compared to ours,’ he says....’’

By: Kibbutz

Kibbutz — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:39:11 -0800

C'mon, people--there's a simple solution here. Everybody call the numbers and see who answers. "Hello, Greenspan residence. Alan speaking." I'll do the first 25.

By: longsleeves

longsleeves — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:40:18 -0800

Firce, djou get de money. Den you get the power. Then, you buy sex

By: caddis

caddis — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:41:01 -0800

This is great - just in case some Gomers have been flagging this as something that should be deleted. It is actually kind of an important story. So please, back of the deletion button pal.

By: ericb

ericb — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:41:38 -0800

I would also point out that these numbers are from 5+ years ago. Don't jump to conclusions that the same person still has the same phone number. Yeah -- just ask Shira Barlow: UCLA student gets Paris Hilton's old cell number, and many calls. NPR interview with Shira. "...she plans on keeping the number."

By: MonkeySaltedNuts

MonkeySaltedNuts — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:42:45 -0800

I've been able to download some files from that site. NOTE: check the size of your downloads. If it is less than 1KB then it is just a html message saying the server is busy and you need to re-download.

By: hwestiii

hwestiii — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:46:29 -0800

Service Temporarily Unavailable The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later. Apache/1.3.33 Server at deborahjeanepalfrey.com Port 80 Must be popular...

By: ericb

ericb — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:47:30 -0800

Vitter Issues Statement The first of many, I suppose. Following Mark Foley, Ted Haggard and others of late, we might expect many similar statements, admissions of "sin," and rehab centers seeing a rise in admissions in the next few weeks.

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:49:11 -0800

"We've traced the calls, they're coming from inside the House!"

By: lometogo

lometogo — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:49:13 -0800

I think Brendan Behan said it best "The only difference between sex for free and sex for money is that sex for money tends to cost a lot less".

By: Flunkie

Flunkie — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:53:07 -0800

This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible. Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling

That's odd. When I spoke to God about this, he told me he didn't forgive Senator Vitter.

By: longsleeves

longsleeves — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:56:02 -0800

"We've traced the calls, they're coming from inside the House!" lol

By: quonsar

quonsar — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:01:50 -0800

CORTEX DO NOT DELETE THIS THREAD. JESSAMYN DO NOT EDIT THIS THREAD. MATHOWIE DO NOT CLOSE THIS THREAD.

By: JWright

JWright — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:01:54 -0800

"We've traced the calls, they're coming from inside the House!" HA!

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:09:40 -0800

Johns are "criminal vultures"? I imagine them more like sad, old men. I reckon they were maybe a little happier during some of these little visits, though.

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:11:31 -0800

David Vitter knows that it's easy to say no to sex.

By: lukemeister

lukemeister — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:12:26 -0800

Why is Sen. Vitter "of Vallejo, California" if he grew up in New Orleans and is a Senator from Louisiana? Glad to see he's Giuliani's Southern Regional Chair.

By: Riki tiki

Riki tiki — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:12:34 -0800

I support the release of this list as a way to weed out the hypocritical crusaders in our government. However, as someone who has never used prostitution services but would support legalization, I feel slightly bad for the everyday johns who are going to get their private lives trotted out into the limelight at the same time; the guys who weren't pretending they were icons of morality, but still wouldn't have wanted a permanent label like this.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:13:19 -0800

I grabbed the files, I'll run one of them through an OCR program just for kicks.

By: Heywood Mogroot

Heywood Mogroot — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:14:43 -0800

"I don't believe there's any issue [federal marriage amendment] that's more important than this one," said Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican. "I think this debate is very healthy, and it's winning a lot of hearts and minds. I think we're going to show real progress." Yet another Old-Testament-for-thee, not-for-me Republican exposed. Praise Jesus!

By: clevershark

clevershark — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:15:27 -0800

"Why is Sen. Vitter 'of Vallejo, California' if he grew up in New Orleans and is a Senator from Louisiana?" He's not, but the DC Madam is. Most of her outgoing calls seem to be to that particular city.

By: Pastabagel

Pastabagel — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:16:16 -0800

Link is dead. I volunteer to call numbers, if someone can get me a list.

By: 2sheets

2sheets — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:16:23 -0800

LOL HYPOCTRITES

By: Mach5

Mach5 — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:16:56 -0800

TORRENT!

By: Mach5

Mach5 — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:17:28 -0800

gah. its dead.

By: Mach5

Mach5 — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:18:30 -0800

SEEDED TORRENT!

By: H-Bar

H-Bar — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:19:39 -0800

The AT&T records only list numbers called, not any incoming numbers. There could still be some useful information there, but not nearly as much as we might hope. The Cingular records clearly list the numbers for both incoming and outgoing calls. This could be a goldmine, even though it only covers a one-year timeframe. The Sprint records don't label any calls as incoming or outgoing. Either they don't make the distinction on these records, or incoming calls don't get put on the list at all. But there's a charge listed with each call, so I'd guess it's outgoing only. This only applies to the first three files I opened. It's possible that these companies modified their record formats over the years.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:20:49 -0800

OCR isn't terribly useful here, the tiff files aren't very good quality. They have to be eyeballed. Some of these files are 50-page fax images.

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:22:17 -0800

"Alas! Where love is concerned, self-interested deception is superior to the truth itself, which is why so many men pay so high a price to clever deceivers." Honore de Balzac, The Black Sheep (1842)

By: lukemeister

lukemeister — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:22:30 -0800

Mach5 - Your link shows no seeders, but several jiggling sexy singles.

By: puke & cry

puke & cry — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:23:57 -0800

There's 1 seeder, actually.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:29:42 -0800

Google some of those numbers. You'll have a good laugh.

By: Flunkie

Flunkie — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:32:20 -0800

Google some of those numbers. You'll have a good laugh.

Don't hold us in suspense. Not all of us were able to get the files, and even for those of us that did, there are a billion numbers that you might be talking about.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:39:31 -0800

more on Vitter (R-Hypocrisy), and the Sanctity of Marriage ABC lied when they said there was no one they recognized--not surprising, sadly.

By: zerolives

zerolives — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:39:52 -0800

I grabbed the records and put them in a torrent: http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3737505 Praise me, internet.

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:41:26 -0800

On Friday, Ross broke the news that U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Randall Tobias had frequented the escort service. Ross added new details to that story tonight, recounting how he asked Tobias in a telephone interview “if he knew any of the young women, their names. He said he didn’t remember them at all. He said it was like ordering pizza.” Under President Bush, Tobias oversaw a program helping men in poor countries “develop healthy relationships with women.”

By: H-Bar

H-Bar — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:41:37 -0800

clevershark, what format are you using to google numbers? The only one that's given me any results in xxx-xxx-xxxx format is for an AT&T number that shows up as the caller for all their phone cards. Any different format - parentheses around the area code or a space to separate it - give me useless number-filled webpages rather than anything referring to the phone number I'm looking for.

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:42:48 -0800

Vitter Statement on Protecting the Sanctity of Marriage “This is a real outrage. The Hollywood left is redefining the most basic institution in human history, and our two U.S. Senators won’t do anything about it. 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.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:44:23 -0800

Anyone else famous or powerful? What about Cheney? There were rumors he was on it, on the oldest pages.

By: MonkeySaltedNuts

MonkeySaltedNuts — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:45:24 -0800

By: Flunkie

Flunkie — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:46:03 -0800

I was only able to get a few of the files. The ones that I looked at only have the numbers of outbound calls. Googling them has revealed: (1) A hotel; (2) A lady who works as an escort; (3) A whole lot of nothin'. I assume that a lot, if not the vast majority, of the outbound numbers are going to be such things. The incoming numbers are what I would think would be interesting. Do some of the files have incoming numbers?

By: Flunkie

Flunkie — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:46:42 -0800

Incidentally, for maximal hypocrisy potential, I would be interested in the calls on September 11, 2001.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:47:00 -0800

... Randall Tobias, a senior official in the State Department, resigned in April after ABC News confronted him about his use of the escort service. He admitted that he had hired women to come to his Washington condo and give him massages but denied that he had sex with the escorts. Palfrey threatened for months to release her client list, which led prosecutors to accuse her of trying to intimidate potential witnesses. Contending that her escort service was legal, Palfrey revealed details of its operation on ABC's news magazine "20/20" on May 4. At the time, ABC said it could not link any information provided by Palfrey to members of Congress or White House officials but did find links to prominent business executives, NASA officials and at least five military officers. ... So who else was ABC protecting and who are these people?

By: clevershark

clevershark — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:47:12 -0800

Well that was a bit of an overreaction on my part, but one of the ones I looked up from the Cingular Aug-to-Dec 2005 is listed by Google as the personal number of an anti-terrorism consultant. I'm guessing that guy will NOT be having a good day tomorrow. I've looked up a bunch more that don't have any search result in Google, but there are only 4 or 5 regular numbers that remain a mystery. Nothing THAT exciting (in the 202-224, 202-456 or 202-395 ranges, that is).

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:48:28 -0800

They must have both, or Vitter wouldn't have outed himself, Flunkie.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:49:07 -0800

Any 08 candidates? Thompson is supposed to be a whore, so he probably paid for it too.

By: davy

davy — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:57:14 -0800

OMG! What if pplz is keeping a PERMANENT RECORD of all the pplz whose DOWNLOADING these filez? Then they'll hunt us down and kill us, just like in The Parallax View!

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:57:51 -0800

David Vitter: Liar. Hypocrite. Whoremonger.

By: puke & cry

puke & cry — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:00:55 -0800

I was able to download all the files through the cache but I'm seeding that torrent, in case anyone cares.

By: Flunkie

Flunkie — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:05:54 -0800

March 26, 2004: Vitter "Denies Affair With Prostitute, Says Charges Are Politically Motivated".

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:06:02 -0800

Thanks for the link, amberglow. This is gold: Asked by an interviewer in 2000 whether she could forgive her husband if she learned he’d had an extramarital affair, as Hillary Clinton and Bob Livingston’s wife had done, Wendy Vitter told the Times-Picayune: “I’m a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he does something like that, I’m walking away with one thing, and it’s not alimony, trust me.”

By: Flunkie

Flunkie — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:10:50 -0800

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

Assuming that she followed through on her threat, I wonder if the good Senator is aware that he is now forbidden by the Bible to enter into the congregation of the Lord.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:12:57 -0800

I love it how the AP story actually never mentions that he was a US Representative at the time, but only says it was before he was in the Senate--our media is appalling. Watch and see if this gets play--i'm betting if it's all GOP names it won't, but any Dem on that list will be frontpage news.

By: lukemeister

lukemeister — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:28:07 -0800

amberglow - So if the prostitute's name had not been Wendy, Vitter would have gone on seeing her? I guess I just can't look at the big picture like a member of Congress can.

By: facetious

facetious — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:29:19 -0800

Metafilter: hopefully not a DP!

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:53:01 -0800

[edited the post to include the cache link. suck it quonsar.]

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:56:25 -0800

ColdChef, when's he up for re-election?

By: Flunkie

Flunkie — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:58:42 -0800

when's he up for re-election?

2010.

By: daninnj

daninnj — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:58:47 -0800

Okay, someone get this guy to call all the numbers. Oh wait...

By: LarryC

LarryC — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:00:46 -0800

Is there a wiki for this project?

By: maxwelton

maxwelton — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:03:24 -0800

A republican hypocrite? This is news! (And I'm with Amberglow. Doubt we'll here much about the republican transgressors from our "liberal" media, but any dems will be utterly roasted.)

By: maxwelton

maxwelton — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:03:54 -0800

hear. Bah.

By: isopraxis

isopraxis — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:09:04 -0800

Ok, now somebody parse the entire list to only include those whom we give a flying shit, or who might have a family we can tear apart in true american fashion. I don't care if they were elected or not. I want the number Jimmy Swaggert called from when he propositioned the purple teletubby for kinky head-triangle sex.

By: isopraxis

isopraxis — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:11:21 -0800

'. . . yes, this is Swimmy Jaggert and I'm calling for the *ahem* "Tinky-Winky" special.

By: taosbat

taosbat — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:21:43 -0800

Ha! Ha!

By: edverb

edverb — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:31:05 -0800

Not like this is any sort of original observation on the matter...but I'm going to put it out there anyway. I'd wager that every American hearing the news of the release of these phone records is doing so with the absolute certainty that it will end careers, and many (if not most) are practically salivating at the prospect of imminent downfalls of the powerful. And I'll admit I'm one of them. And yet... the embarassment, the immorality, the adultery, the hypocrisy, all the things the judgments upon the names on that list will be, at their core these are not sins against the People. Against their spouses, sure. Against their professed morals, in most cases. Against their God, most definitely. The victims of bad, moralizing, demogogic policy remain the same whether the proponents of said policies are on that list or not. But for all the grave wickedness of the crazed Bush years -- state-sanctioned torture, criminal profiteering and corruption, deceiving our nation into a farcical war of aggression, letting an entire city drown and abandoning the survivors, the co-opting and bribery of our media, illegally spying on our own citizens, imprisoning Americans without charges, and subverting justice itself... "Surely this will be the thing" for the people on that list. Have no doubt. It isn't original thinking by any stretch, but it still confounds me as to which sins the American people will forgive, as compared to those which they will not. It's as if there is only one commandment for government. You know the one.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:45:00 -0800

And yet... the embarassment, the immorality, the adultery, the hypocrisy, all the things the judgments upon the names on that list will be, at their core these are not sins against the People. For those of us who are the targets of their demonization and legislation, and for those who believe in the promises of the Constitution and rights and justice, etc, their past actions are the sins against the people, and this simply exposes their hypocrisy and lies. They've already cast many many stones, and now they're caught for their own sins. Of course it's not as bad as Bush/Cheney and all the rest, but it's something--it's karma, maybe.

By: Avenger

Avenger — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:51:44 -0800

It's as if there is only one commandment for government. You know the one. Sex = evil, violence = good?

By: dhartung

dhartung — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:56:17 -0800

By: Heywood Mogroot

Heywood Mogroot — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 23:06:59 -0800

the left has always maintained that sexual relationships are one's own business more like it's pointless if not counter-productive trying to legislate traditional [eg. Bible-based] morality without over-riding real-world social costs. cf. the Lawrence decision, which the 3 conservatard-approved justices (no doubt Alito & Roberts would join them) dissented. the joy comes in the demonstration that "morality-for-thee but not me" just isn't going to work over the long run. Props to the VERY fundamentalist State Senator from Michigan who said this same thing not too long ago in trying to explain his "anti-family" vote to his angry constituents. (Anybody know the name, I've been trying to google it for ages?)

By: edverb

edverb — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 23:12:12 -0800

Amberglow, of course I agree that it is flat out wrong for a legislator to demonize gay Americans and seek to deprive the rights extended to others simply on the basis of sexual preference. I tried (and probably failed) to make the distinction clearly enough. As abhorrent as that stance is, it has not yet come to pass that these legislators lose their offices over it. In fact, it's quite the opposite -- in some corners of our country, they are rewarded with their offices for that stance. To some, it is not only not a sin, it's a positive virtue. This is why I draw the distinction between bad policy (which is often overlooked or even encouraged) and the solicitation of a prostitute (which is unforgiveable). Likewise -- greed, wrath, pride, deceitfulness, even theft and murder -- are often overlooked, and worse still can be (and amazingly are) spun as virtues! The hiring of prostitutes isn't their sin against the people (though the hypocrisy is delicious). Backwards policies to enshrine bias in our Constitution is the sin against the people -- whether the proponents are hypocrites or they actually believe their own nonsense. And my point is: Guess which one will likely cost David Vitter his job?

By: zerolives

zerolives — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 23:23:04 -0800

The wiki is up. Let's do some collaborative citizen journalism. Full Disclosure: I registered the domain and put up the site.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 23:49:07 -0800

Are the files sensibly named? It'd be nice if it were dead easy to verify the tiff images against the wiki page.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 00:39:47 -0800

For those of us who are the targets of their demonization and legislation, and for those who believe in the promises of the Constitution and rights and justice, etc, their past actions are the sins against the people, and this simply exposes their hypocrisy and lies. these are their minor sins against the people their major sins against the people lie in over 3,000 american graves and hundreds of thousands of iraqi ones their major sins against the people exist in overcrowded emergency rooms, empty factories and neighborhoods full of boarded up houses their major sins against the people are practically never committed in bedrooms ... but what do people choose to get upset about? we not only get the government we deserve, we get the government that we pay attention to

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 00:46:28 -0800

DP stands for too many other things, one of which is the reason I am laughing hysterically right now.

By: Lord_Pall

Lord_Pall — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 00:50:44 -0800

This is awesome. And the wiki is even more awesome. I'll start researching as soon as I get home from work this evening.

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 02:36:24 -0800

DP stands for too many other things... Indeed, there was no director of photography to be seen anywhere!

By: Faint of Butt

Faint of Butt — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 03:34:06 -0800

zerolives, "discussion" has three S's in it. Check your wiki.

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 03:39:36 -0800

Al Capone went to prison for tax evasion. Numerous other reprehensible criminals were likewise jailed for relatively minor crimes. If this list forces some of the chicken hawks and moral prescriptivists from power, it is a Good Thing.

By: hoverboards don't work on water

hoverboards don't work on water — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:29:22 -0800

Question: when did visiting brothels go from being the pastime of cads, playboys, and roaring-and-whoring young thrillseekers to being the pastime of sad old men in raincoats?

By: jeremias

jeremias — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:51:25 -0800

Question: when did visiting brothels go from being the pastime of cads, playboys, and roaring-and-whoring young thrillseekers to being the pastime of sad old men in raincoats? My vote would be the late 1950's when the CIA infiltrated brothels and "tested" the effects of LSD on unknowing customers.

By: jfuller

jfuller — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 04:56:15 -0800

> I'll start researching as soon as I get home from work this evening. Not to spoil anyone's fun, but those who do so forfeit their right to be outraged by random data-mining of their own public or might-suddenly-become-public records, by Focus on the Family or Fred Phelps's gang or the FBI or anybody. If you challenge them they get to reply, unanswerably, "We did as you did, not as you said." I'm particularly looking at amberglow here, but not just him--there have been plenty of other instances of outragefilter about hamhanded data-mining (as carried out by enemies of the people, of course.) While reading those threads fuller thought "Hmmpf, if there was something you birds wanted to find out by hamhanded data-mining I bet it wouldn't even occur to you to hesitate." This thread has, so far, given me no reason to change that opinion.

By: Civil_Disobedient

Civil_Disobedient — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 05:13:06 -0800

but those who do so forfeit their right to be outraged by random data-mining of their own public or might-suddenly-become-public records, by Focus on the Family or Fred Phelps's gang or the FBI or anybody Aaahh, I get it now. You missed that week in school where they explained the difference between private citizen and elected official.

By: jfuller

jfuller — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 05:24:26 -0800

And which of the numbers on the list are elected officials? You have no idea, and you can't find out without snooping on each of them, elected or private. Which is exactly what you can't do without forfeiting your right to be outraged when others snoop on your own private, un-elected life. Go have another cuppa, C_D, your brain's still on standby power.

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:05:39 -0800

Count me a concern troll, but really, the left has always maintained that sexual relationships are one's own business. I have no joy in seeing the downfall of those who do not deserve it, and only qualified joy in seeing the downfall of those who may deserve it for another reason entirely. One loses any ideologically-based protection from a particular principle when one devotes oneself to the annihilation of that principle.

By: The Deej

The Deej — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:12:34 -0800

You missed that week in school where they explained the difference between private citizen and elected official. posted by Civil_Disobedient EVERYONE!!! Don't look at any records unless it's for an elected official!!!! If you come across one of the vast majority of private citizen's records... don't look at it Marion!!! Close your eyes!!!!

By: John Kenneth Fisher

John Kenneth Fisher — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:47:18 -0800

[edited the post to include the cache link. suck it quonsar.] Hey, you told us about it! That's all most of us wanted :-)

By: amberglow

amberglow — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:57:21 -0800

Not to spoil anyone's fun, but those who do so forfeit their right to be outraged by random data-mining of their own public or might-suddenly-become-public records, by Focus on the Family or Fred Phelps's gang or the FBI or anybody. If you challenge them they get to reply, unanswerably, "We did as you did, not as you said." I'm particularly looking at amberglow here, I'm not looking thru them at all. But-- i don't respect their privacy, since they amply and publicly have demonstrated they don't respect mine at all--or my rights. See how that works? This is not the vaccuming up of all our random calls and emails like ATT and others are doing. This is not the total collection of all data all citizens we put out there like all marketers are doing. There are illegal acts connected to every single piece of this data. Also, this material was not vacuumed up, nor obtained illegally. It was freely given by the madam to the public, and is a record of her dealings which she herself gave to us. Looking thru it is in no way comparable to the sucking up of all our data by authorities.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:01:24 -0800

If you're going to compare this to something, the apt comparisons are the DOJ document dumps and the CIA's "family jewels"--both formerly private info released to the public intentionally.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:02:43 -0800

And the courts allowed her to release this too.

By: jckll

jckll — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:07:45 -0800

.TIF, seriously? What, prostitutes can't be bothered to pay for Adobe?

By: drstein

drstein — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:16:46 -0800

"Apache/1.3.33 Server at deborahjeanepalfrey.com Port 80 Must be popular..." No, she's just not using Apache 2! ;-)

By: winks007

winks007 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:30:58 -0800

Oh no, not more lapses of judgement for a Louisiana politician. I'll go ahead and act shocked. Gosh am I shocked! SOS...different day.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:11:01 -0800

But-- i don't respect their privacy, since they amply and publicly have demonstrated they don't respect mine at all--or my rights. See how that works? yes ... it's called "the ends justify the means" partisan politics and a lot of us are sick of it the continued vulgarization of our politics is not a good thing ... nor is the hypocritical usage of moral "standards" neither side believes in the result will not be freedom, but an invasive attempt at legislating morality by the right and left, by the government or the press

By: Heywood Mogroot

Heywood Mogroot — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:44:07 -0800

being on the side of honesty is not partisan

By: amberglow

amberglow — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:49:59 -0800

the continued vulgarization of our politics is not a good thing ... nor is the hypocritical usage of moral "standards" neither side believes in Guess what? Some of us do have moral standards, and we don't do what we rant and legislate against. This is not ends justify the means, but pointing out the utter bankruptcy of the liars and hypocrites who would make us live by rules they themselves don't follow. We already have only one side ever legislating morality while not living by it themselves. Ignoring that they're already doing it, and it's really hurting millions and will hurt many many more, is only your first mistake, pyramid. Ascribing that to all sides is your second, since it's not true, and demonstrably false over and over and over. More on Vitter: ...As for now, the race is on for who can pile up the most vividly hypocritical quote from the family values (or as he put it, "Louisiana values") conservative. In the running: Sen. Vitter maligning the "Hollywood left" for violating the "sanctity of marriage," and Vitter arguing that President Clinton should step down for his extramarital affair (Vitter, by the by, replaced Rep. Bob Livingston (R-LA) after the speaker was forced to step down because of an affair). There are, you can be sure, many more. ..

By: amberglow

amberglow — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:52:55 -0800

being on the side of honesty is not partisan Exactly. pyramid is way way too busy painting everyone with the same brush to admit it.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:56:14 -0800

I'll also add that both Vitter and that Tobias guy outed themselves--neither of them were outed by others at all.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:26:05 -0800

Guess what? Some of us do have moral standards, and we don't do what we rant and legislate against. if you don't believe in laws against adultery, or in the religious laws against them, but still use them against hypocritical opponents, they you yourself are partaking in that hypocrisy This is not ends justify the means, but pointing out the utter bankruptcy of the liars and hypocrites who would make us live by rules they themselves don't follow. while declaring that if your candidate gets caught doing the same thing, it should be ignored it won't be ... especially if you've already gotten some of theirs with that kind of dirt ... wasn't that what the clinton impeachment was all about? We already have only one side ever legislating morality while not living by it themselves. oh, like passing laws against perjury and then failing to convict those guilty of them? ... like congress giving a certain president a pass and then screaming bloody murder when the next president does the same for his guy? do you mean decrying a war without actually going on record as voting against paying for it? ... or giving long speeches about americans' eroding freedom while having voted for the patriot act? ... or mourning the continued segregation of our schools and cities from lilywhite suburbs? ... or giving lip service to improving jobs for working people while nodding tacitly as they're sent overseas by corporate contributors? oh, there's a LOT of people on a LOT of sides legislating morality while not living by it themselves ... or proclaiming it without actually being willing to vote for it ... if only you and your opponents would expand your definition of morality beyond the sexual you would see that by joining them in the politics of smear you are ensuring that other hypocricies will continue unabated pyramid is way way too busy painting everyone with the same brush to admit it. where is this honesty in our body politic you keep talking about? ... i sure as hell can't find it

By: Snyder

Snyder — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:33:58 -0800

Exactly. pyramid is way way too busy painting everyone with the same brush to admit it. No needs to paint you with it, you all painted yourselves. This isn't about honesty, this is about your side.

By: Snyder

Snyder — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:49:35 -0800

Oh, and, yeah, these guys are hypocrites, yeah, I had some schadenfreude when Haggard was outed as a homo, but I realize that it's because I dislike preachers like him, not because of some jumped-up devotion to "honesty." I also realize that stuff like this is ultimately destructive to political discourse, and I try not to frame any pleasure I get out of it as moral superiority. The sanctimony in this thread is gagging. Oh, and this is a deeply shitty post.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:50:06 -0800

...if you don't believe in laws against adultery, or in the religious laws against them, but still use them against hypocritical opponents, they you yourself are partaking in that hypocrisy ... I do believe in laws against adultery--it hurts people and famillies, just like what Vitter has done over and over--both by his own multiple adultery, and his legislating and running on an anti-gay platform and one of "moral values" and "family values" he himself never lived by. When i can't get married and can't commit it myself, my position on adultery is not that i don't believe in laws against it, but that they're just another law and right i don't have--because of Vitter and people like him. There's a big difference between demanding that people follow laws and "legislating morality"--you speak as if all of these are the same. They're not. There's a variety of outrage for a variety of criminal offenses. Wanting equal marriage rights is not about taking away rights or existing laws--it's about having them cover us too, as the Constitution demands. It has nothing to do with adultery laws except that that's just another category of laws and protections we are not covered by. When Vitter outs himself, he's joining himself in "the politics of smear"--it's not anything we're doing. Honesty is not hypocrisy.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:53:06 -0800

David Vitter: Another Victim of Gay Marriage -- ... I wonder what it is going to take wake America up to the damage gay marriage has already done. To the long list of gay marriage casualties, which includes Britney Spears, Ted Haggard and Rudy Giuliani, we can now add another name. How many more is it going to take? For the sake of David Vitter's marriage, I hope that Congress revives the Federal Marriage Amendment and renames it the David Vitter Marriage Amendment, in honor of one man who tragically exemplifies the havoc that gay marriage has wrought in our society. ; >

By: jfuller

jfuller — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:53:58 -0800

msnbc: "Palfrey says she had 10,000 clients contained in lists since 1993 which, according to her Web site, weigh in at "46 pounds of detailed and itemized phone records." amberglow:I'm not looking thru them at all. But-- i don't respect their privacy, since they amply and publicly have demonstrated they don't respect mine at all--or my rights.... There are illegal acts connected to every single piece of this data. So, amberglow, you know in advance, without looking, that every one of those 10,000 numbers on the 46-pound list belongs to a government official who has committed criminal invasions of your privacy, and is therefore fair game? I wish I had ESP like that. Actually, you simply had not given a thought to the comical claim of omnicience you have made concerning who these numbers belong to. Fixed that for you. > Also, this material was not vacuumed up, nor obtained illegally. It was freely given by the madam to the public Some might think the people on the other end of these calls should have a say. But not amberglow, all please note. Therefore, if I ever stumble across any records revealing any of amberglow's own past sexual escapades I'll just ask the possessors of these records whether I can run them out the clothesline to see who drools, without bothering to ask the a-person what his feelings are. And now I have amberglow's nihil obstat on doing things thataway. dhartung: > the left has always maintained that sexual relationships are one's own business. That's what I thought also. I stand corrected. Theirs is their own business. Everyone else's is public property. And, oh yeah, amberglow this morning:I'm not looking thru them at all. amberglow, same thread, last night: Anyone else famous or powerful? What about Cheney? amber says "I don't want to pick up this nasty thing with my fingers. Someone else pick it up and pop it in my mouth for me."

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:02:19 -0800

When Vitter outs himself, he's joining himself in "the politics of smear"--it's not anything we're doing. Honesty is not hypocrisy. so, if he's honest, he's no longer a hypocrite, right? ... he's just a sinner who lost his way and now is redeemed and can stand for what he believes is moral again, right? or do you believe that ex drug addicts telling kids drugs are bad is some kind of hypocrisy, too? ... my point being this - is there such a thing as redemption or does that scarlet letter stay affixed forever? ... if a person slips and then follows the "straight and narrow" sincerely, can he advocate for that in politics and not be called a hypocrite, or is he never to be forgiven? people throw around the word hypocrite around quite casually, but they don't think about the implications enough

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:06:32 -0800

I get the impression that the people opposed to sifting through the document dump are the same people who think outing closeted homosexuals who are publicly virulently anti-gay isn't kosher. What I mean is, these aren't people who bear paying attention to in the first place.

By: The Deej

The Deej — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:11:37 -0800

Allz I know is: I am soooooo glad I changed my phone number.

By: LeeJay

LeeJay — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:11:55 -0800

I have to admit that this makes a certain part of me gleeful. But deep down I don't think this is any of my business. I don't care what my representatives in government do sexually as long as it's between two consenting adults. I don't care if they're partner is the same sex as they are. I don't care if they liked to get tied up and smacked around and I don't care if they seek out prostitutes. It wasn't any of my business when Clinton got freaky with his cigar and this shouldn't be any of my business now. I do feel sorry for the spouses, partners and kids that are going to have to go through this with the spotlight on them. Along with all of the non-public figures who get caught up in this mess. And yes, hypocrisy sucks, but sexual desire is not that simple and it doesn't always respond to reason no matter which side of the political fence you're on. Sexual activity should either be private for everyone or private for no one. And I'm one of those freaks who thinks prostitution should be legalized and regulated so the fact that some of these people may have broken the law doesn't carry much weight for me. They were stupid, possibly. Careless, certainly. But no worse in my eyes than someone who lights up a little weed every now and then. I've been hoping for something to come along to expose the hypocrisy of those who wish to impose their own morality on everyone else but...not this way. I get the impression that the people opposed to sifting through the document dump are the same people who think outing closeted homosexuals who are publicly virulently anti-gay isn't kosher. What I mean is, these aren't people who bear paying attention to in the first place. On preview. Never mind everyone! Pay no attention to me! *rolls eyes* I'm against outing ANYONE who doesn't wish to be outed as it's none of my business who they fuck. It's the people who VOTE for such priggish virulently anti-gay busy-bodies who worry me.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:30:50 -0800

Some might think the people on the other end of these calls should have a say. But not amberglow, all please note. Therefore, if I ever stumble across any records revealing any of amberglow's own past sexual escapades I'll just ask the possessors of these records whether I can run them out the clothesline to see who drools, without bothering to ask the a-person what his feelings are. And now I have amberglow's nihil obstat on doing things thataway. People on power like Vitter have already done that repeatedly--that's what you don't get --or refuse to get. I and many millions of others are demonized daily and legislated against all over this country all the time. You go dig up what you want on me--i'm fine with it, except that i'm not the criminal here, nor am i a hypocrite--all the people who patronized the Madam actually are criminals, and if they run and legislate on moral or family values they're hypocrites too. You "bring it on", darling--i'm not ashamed of my life or actions, unlike Vitter and Tobias and many many others who are GOP officials. Vitter and Tobias pre-emptively outing themselves because they knew their nbrs were on the lists is not something any of us did. I realize you don't like gossip, but threaten to gossip about me or out me for stuff doesn't really help your stated case at all.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:36:12 -0800

so, if he's honest, he's no longer a hypocrite, right? ... he's just a sinner who lost his way and now is redeemed and can stand for what he believes is moral again, right? I'm not a Christian--that's not what my religion says, nor are his crimes or hypocrisy or lies to all nor his hateful discrimination anything my religion says for anyone to do. His doesn't either, which is the point. This is only about religion in so far as he professed to have some beliefs yet acted in complete opposition to them and lied to voters and the public. His legislative and rhetorical efforts to demonize me and mine is also not about religion, except in so far as he was the one who claimed certain beliefs that justified those actions. His honesty was compelled by the imminent exposure alone--a person truly concerned with moral values and family values wouldn't have waited but would have been honest with constituents and the public -- because that's what his religion says to do, no?

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:45:11 -0800

His honesty was compelled by the imminent exposure alone then don't say he "outed himself" or that it's not anything "we're doing" a person truly concerned with moral values and family values wouldn't have waited but would have been honest with constituents and the public -- because that's what his religion says to do, no? there is a requirement to confess to one's confidants ... there is no requirement to confess publically you're confusing honesty with openness and while we're at it ... i had no idea she provided escorts for just republicans or released republican phone numbers only

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:50:35 -0800

... you know in advance, without looking, that every one of those 10,000 numbers on the 46-pound list belongs to a government official who has committed criminal invasions of your privacy, and is therefore fair game? What I know in advance without looking, is that every one of those 10,000 numbers was associated with a telephone. If I googled those 10,000 numbers, I'd have some smaller set of names to associate with the numbers. That's about all I'd have. No SSANs, no DOBs, no credit histories, no medical histories, no criminal records. In other words, far, far less than the information available for casual perusal on an RFID-equipped passport. All I would know is that the madam had that phone number, and that google says it belongs to that person. Data mining, it's not.

By: Snyder

Snyder — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:55:17 -0800

On preview. Never mind everyone! Pay no attention to me! *rolls eyes* Oh, it's ok, LeeJay, he's a philosophy undergrad, it's not like he has anything useful to say.

By: chunking express

chunking express — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:05:33 -0800

The people at reddit are trying to turn the lists into text right now.

By: !Jim

!Jim — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:38:39 -0800

Also, this material was not vacuumed up, nor obtained illegally. It was freely given by the madam to the public, and is a record of her dealings which she herself gave to us. Looking thru it is in no way comparable to the sucking up of all our data by authorities. So if Google releases everyone's search history, that's okay, right? It's just Google releasing its record of its dealings with us.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:59:02 -0800

“if a person slips and then follows the "straight and narrow" sincerely, can he advocate for that in politics and not be called a hypocrite, or is he never to be forgiven?” Forgiven by family and or God? Sure. And maybe even society. But you are not forgiven by the law if you break the law. Nor should you be put in a position where you are supposed to uphold the law while seeking to avoid justice. I’ve had sex with a pro, legally (Nevada). I did it to get an idea of what it was all about. To have that experiance. Pretty unfufilling really. But that’s me. One can argue there is, as the above Balzac quote points out, a good deal of self-deception going on there and that’s bad in any politician. There are a number of social implications as well as what one thinks of someone who enjoys hookers. I think it’s somewhat repulsive, but, meh, I don’t really care either way since I’m not compelled to use prostitutes. So all that aside - I do care if someone who advocates for a law, seeks to exempt themselves from it. I don’t think anyone who believes in the rule of position or power above the law should be in office. They should believe in, and uphold, the rule of law. All men being subject to it even themselves. And that’s what were talking about. Prostitution is illegal in the places they used it. Either they are responsible, and pay the penalty for their crime or they get out of it somehow. If they seek to get out of it through abusing their position of responsibility in government that speaks volumes about them and no, they shouldn’t have the job. God or forgiveness doesn’t enter into it. In fact it really pisses me off that anyone would bring that into the equation as some kind of excuse or appeal when the law is involved. This is not to say one must adhere to an unjust law - but there was no kind of civil disobediance going on here. I suspect that part of their enjoyment is that sense of privilege. That now that you’re a senator or whatnot you are exempt from certain constraints. And perhaps that’s true socially, and it’s debatable whether one is or is not a hypocrite if one champions a given social cause while privately indulging in excesses. But the simple fact is it is illegal and they are lawmakers. If they wish the law to be changes so they can make use of whores all day, they could change the law. There are still social and financial barriers to others such that they could enjoy that privilege. By not doing so, by advocating against the legalization of something while indulging in it themselves they are not merely hypocritical they are engaging in a kind of thinking contrary to the basic principles of this country - the establishment of inequity in defiance of the consent of the governed. That’d be true no matter what the substance of the given law was - whether they were smoking marijuana or smuggling Cuban cigars or stealing from the treasury. They must not only be stopped, but held accountable. If their constituents forgive them, so be it. I understand people were still sending money to the t.v. preachers during their sex scandals. But we’re not talking some idiots believing in some charismatic preacher or what the beliefs or by-laws are in some church. Politicians are on my time and they - and the law - is supposed to work for all of us, not themselves.

By: phearlez

phearlez — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:59:44 -0800

ABC lied when they said there was no one they recognized--not surprising, sadly. Never presume malice and/or conspiracy when simple incompetence and/or sloth will explain just as well...

By: fcummins

fcummins — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:08:41 -0800

Speaking as an unreformed bad person, I am delighted to see these records used to make Republicans squirm as their sexual hypocracy is revealed. Its not ethical. Its fun. Because these bastards are the ones who tried to impeach a good president over a blowjob, and then gave us the present disaster. Of course its not ethical. Its fun. Its personal.

By: Faint of Butt

Faint of Butt — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:21:15 -0800

So if Google releases everyone's search history, that's okay, right? It's just Google releasing its record of its dealings with us. As long as the search histories of all Google employees are also released at the same time, yeah, I can't really argue.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:47:04 -0800

CNN just said it was Larry Flynt's office who tipped Vitter off about it as part of a story. For Google, it would depend on their terms of service, obviously. Just as Vitter has violated his oath of office, repeatedly. and what Smedleyman said. : >

By: amberglow

amberglow — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:58:19 -0800

Vitter's implication in a prostitution ring comes just three days after Giuliani's former state campaign chairman for the crucial primary state of South Carolina was formally arraigned on Friday in a federal criminal indictment of possessing cocaine. After federal prosecutors charged Thomas Ravenel, he resigned as South Carolina state treasurer and Giuliani's state chairman. ... And now Ravenel's virulently racist father is on Giuliani's staff. Hysterical! We've got your whoremongers, hypocrites, crack dealers, racists, pedophile priests, Kerik, a 3rd wife who killed puppies for a living...I'm betting Vitter's replacement will be a serial killer.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:03:08 -0800

ABC says they would have reported Vitter's name if they had it-- ..."Within hours of a phone call from the offices of HUSTLER Magazine asking Vitter to comment on an article HUSTLER reporters were working on, Vitter ran to the Associated Press in an attempt to get ahead of the story," said the statement e-mailed to RAW STORY. "As of 2 p.m. West Coast time on Monday, only Larry Flynt and the HUSTLER investigative team knew that Vitter’s phone number appeared on the phone records of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the so-called D.C. Madam. Within hours of obtaining the phone records, Flynt's team found what ABC News has so far been unable to ferret out." ...

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:24:58 -0800

Pfft, I've been reading Hustler for the news articles for years. Not only is it free of both the cowardly MSM's self-imposed constraints AND smarmy NewsFilter's oozing sanctimony, Hustler is, unlike TIME and MacLean's, something I wouldn't be embarrassed to be seen reading on the bus. Well, there is plenty of oozing in Hustler, but I'm pretty sure it's not sanctimony.

By: krash2fast

krash2fast — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:36:27 -0800

To those of you worried about the "data-mining" implications: Originally these records were only going to be released to journalists (including bloggers) who agreed not to out the average joes on the list, just those whose use of the service violated the public trust (namely, those that govern us... elected officials and their appointees). The only reason they were released in their entirety was as a safeguard against falsified versions of the list once it was determined that the list had already been compromised. I don't believe in any such ridiculous thing as a victimless crime. Most of the arguments in favor of victimless crime (prostitution and drug use, mostly) can only cite social reasons. Usually, if the "crime" in question were legalized because society changed it's viewpoint, the negative effects would disappear. I don't judge the average johns on this list for their actions and don't believe they did anything wrong. So let's respect that. HOWEVER, those that are high-ranking members of the government have violated the public trust with their actions. Those who dictate the law (frequently in spite of the public interest) had goddamn well better follow it. Saying that looking through this list is like Google releasing all search records is mind-bogglingly stupid. THINK, people! Is every use of Google a criminal act (right or wrong)? Do elected officials endanger national security and violate the public trust by using Google? The lady has evidence of crimes committed, tried to shield those who shouldn't have their lives turned upside down, and released all the records for the sake of integrity when she had no other option. I don't think she's doing anything wrong by releasing HER OWN phone records. Also, what Kirth Gerson said.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:14:18 -0800

This is getting richer and richer: U.S. Senator David Vitter visited a Canal Street brothel several times beginning in the mid-1990s, paying $300 per hour for services at the bordello after he met the madam at a fishing rodeo that included prostitutes and other politicians, according to Jeanette Maier, the "Canal Street Madam" whose operation was shut down by a federal investigators in 2001. After they met, Maier said Vitter became a customer at the Mid-City brothel. He made several visits, she said, but had stopped coming before federal agents raided the brothel. ...

By: krash2fast

krash2fast — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:39:05 -0800

He made several visits, she said, but had stopped coming before federal agents raided the brothel. ... Well at least he got to finish!

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:43:54 -0800

Forgiven by family and or God? Sure. And maybe even society. But you are not forgiven by the law if you break the law. the press and the internet are not courts of law ... although it has come to my recent attention that some treat them as if they are there's not much i would say about it if he were to be legally charged with a crime ... but i have my doubts as to whether that will ever happen to anyone on this list the great irony of all this is - by "outing" various politicians and their sexual "crimes", all we're doing is putting evolutionary pressure on the system so it will produce even more simon pure, unassailable, perfect, self-righteous guardians of "morality" ... eventually, the hypocrites will be gone and we'll be faced with people who actually practice what they preach in a small way, this is actually HELPING them, isn't it? ... isn't the end result going to be that candidates are going to end up having their lives thoroughly vetted and inspected and it's going to end up being more about personalities and adherence to the "letter of the law" rather than the issues? ... isn't this scandal in politics as entertainment? ... does this really help us find solutions for the problems of the day, or does it just titillate the masses with another circus to distract them from the real issues? ... or does it just reinforce the already prevalent belief that "they're a bunch of crooks and liars and i might as well stay home on election day"? it's vulgar, common demagoguery and we ought to be cautious about how we encourage it

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:01:29 -0800

Vitter's nice to his whores: She said the women who worked in her brothel considered Vitter a decent man. "I know he's not a drug addict," she said. "I know he's not a person that would down talk a woman. I know that he's respectful. I know from what I've seen that he is honorable, that he's a good man. His wife should be very proud of her husband irregardless of what he's done." She added, "He was not a freak. He was not into anything unusual or kinky or weird."

By: Heywood Mogroot

Heywood Mogroot — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:04:01 -0800

the press and the internet are not courts of law ... although it has come to my recent attention that some treat them as if they are you better fuckin' believe it. The press, and the internet by extension, is supposed to dig dirt and name names, if & when it serves the public interest. The Sacramento Bee wasn't named that because the original proprietors were big on pollination.

By: Heywood Mogroot

Heywood Mogroot — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:10:48 -0800

isn't this scandal in politics as entertainment no, it's purging the body politic of fucking idiots. HTH. The people who actually walk their talk have no need to be the moralizing public pricks; they recognize the strength of private piety need not be artificially enhanced by attempting to nerf society of all negative temptations & vices.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:57:25 -0800

no, it's purging the body politic of fucking idiots ... and replacing them with virginal ones? The people who actually walk their talk have no need to be the moralizing public pricks so adolf hitler, ayoltollah khomeini and osama bin laden didn't walk their talk? dude, it's NOT the hypocrites you need to worry about, it's the incorruptable people who REALLY mean it the absurd point of all this is - neither of us, or amberglow, would ever be convinced by a man's chaste love life to vote for him if he supports garbage like the "defense of marriage act" ... and do you think for a moment that joe religious nut is going to vote against the same kind of guy just because he gets caught in the wrong bed? ... or are they going to say, well, he's flawed, he's a sinner, but he stands for the "right" things? at best, in the primary, candidate hypocrite will be replaced by candidate realdeal ... at worst, everyone will just hear more negative back and forth garbage and issues will continue to be neglected for personalities didn't we already go through this with clinton? ... and what was accomplished by it? ... anything? ... can anyone on this site state a non-partisan reason why it was wrong for the republicans to hound clinton over his blow job and cigar and why it's right to hound republicans over their sex lives? what's good for one is good for the other ... and if that's the kind of politics you want in this country, keep encouraging it as for myself, i know it's a waste of time ... both sides think they're pissing on each other, but they're really just all pissing in the wind

By: Sheldon

Sheldon — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:19:45 -0800

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2548034 THE INTERNET'S FINEST DETECTIVES ARE ON THE CASE! Fun starts~ page 5.

By: Heywood Mogroot

Heywood Mogroot — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 00:05:08 -0800

replacing them with virginal ones no, rational, like what this nation was blessed with at the founding. didn't walk their talk no, my argument people with the spiritual maturity to act as moral agents don't feel the need to impose their brand of morality via the compulsion of the state. Hypocrites, on the other hand, are always pulling this shit. incorruptable people who REALLY mean it good thing we live in a democracy and not a totalitarian dictatorship. Exposing idiocy and public dishonesty is not partisan, and is not pissing in the wind. It is purgative. didn't we already go through this with clinton? this crossed the transom with me driving home tonight. Clinton's dishonesty was in response to Republican dishonesty/BS ("Think of the Children!") and had precious little to do with his fitness in office or his integrity as a person. His private moral failings were just that, and the American people roundly rejected the Republicans' issue-making efforts, much to their chagrin and surprise, no doubt. and why it's right to hound republicans over their sex lives? This would be an inappropriate intrusion into people who, let me capitalize this for you, WERE NOT TRYING TO LEGISLATE OLD TESTAMENT MORALITY for us all. Lev. 20:10

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 06:53:19 -0800

good thing we live in a democracy and not a totalitarian dictatorship. that can always change Exposing idiocy and public dishonesty is not partisan the way you are advocating it, it is Clinton's dishonesty was in response to Republican dishonesty/BS bullshit ... he lied about his private sex life to cover his ass His private moral failings were just that not after they became public fodder for controversy His private moral failings were just that, and the American people roundly rejected the Republicans' issue-making efforts those who supported clinton rejected it and those who were against him never let it go ... "the american people" don't exist except as a sock puppet for people's arguments and don't insult our intelligence by saying that and why it's right to hound republicans over their sex lives? This would be an inappropriate intrusion into people who, let me capitalize this for you, WERE NOT TRYING TO LEGISLATE OLD TESTAMENT MORALITY for us all. Lev. 20:10 in other words, it's partisan ... whether a person's sex life is investigated has nothing to do with the appropriateness of such investigations and everything to do with their political stance in spite of all the spinning and dancing, you still appear to be hurting our republic for partisan purposes if it's wrong for one side, it's wrong for both if it's right for one side, then it's right for both and partisan moral relativism doesn't cut it And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. please show me one congressman who has proposed this in a bill in congress ... or do you have some sort of "special" interpretation of "trying to legislate" that the rest of us aren't privileged to know?

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:01:30 -0800

It's not hounding them over their sex lives so much as it is hounding them over their duplicity. Dipshit posed as a morally righteous god-fearing man who was going to put an end to this sexually libertine society we're living in. And then proceeded to behave like those whom he'd throw in jail. That just ain't right.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:14:58 -0800

It's not hounding them over their sex lives so much as it is hounding them over their duplicity. and when a democrat cheats on his wife, there's no duplicity involved? ... or when we say "expose his life as he's X, but don't expose his because he's Y", that's not duplicity? what's done with one will be done with the other, no matter how much you insist it is different ... accept one, you must accept the other as that is the reality ... all the words on all the web sites in the world will not stop the various dirt squads from getting their dirt if you want a politics of issues and not of personalities, then choose other tactics ... and it is my contention that this kind of tabloid politics is corrupting and weakening our country ... it's amoral and nihilistic and doesn't do us a bit of good

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:24:59 -0800

and when a democrat cheats on his wife, there's no duplicity involved? Is it a democrat who "stressed family issues, supports a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and has pushed for reauthorization of an abstinence education program"? Is it a democrat who ran a ticket of moral authority? 'cause if so, then yes, that's duplicious.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:41:33 -0800

Anyone--D or R--who legislates morality yet is a whoremonger or other lying hypocrite--should be exposed. They're trying to force all of us to live by rules they don't even believe in themselves. They usually resign, which is what Vitter will do. Livingston and Foley and many many others all resigned when exposed--of both parties, except it's only Republicans who advocate that we all should live by their religion. Vitter is an especially blatant case of someone whose whole political career was set up as the good, upstanding Christian family man who wouldn't act like Livingston, the man he replaced. He ran on the bible and made the Federal Marriage Amendment his #1 issue, incessantly talking about the "sanctity of marriage" and how much it was the entire basis for civilization, etc. He himself repeatedly and publicly called for Clinton to resign when exposed for adultery, so he should resign too.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:17:32 -0800

Is it a democrat who "stressed family issues, supports a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and has pushed for reauthorization of an abstinence education program"? did he take a vow to be faithful to his wife? ... does he support this - "Strong families, blessed with opportunity, guided by faith, and filled with dreams are the heart of a strong America"? ... is that not a platform of moral authority? how does one advocate that while cheating on his wife and weakening his own family without duplicity? He himself repeatedly and publicly called for Clinton to resign when exposed for adultery, so he should resign too. only if you're willing to say that clinton should have resigned, too ... you're trying to have it both ways ... if vitter was wrong in calling for clinton to resign, then you are wrong to call for vitter's resignation ... if vitter is wrong to remain in office, then so was clinton anything else is hypocritical moral relativism ... you are not calling for his resignation because he cheated on his wife - you are calling for it because you disagree with his politics and see an opportunity to smear him in short, you're indulging in partisan hackery and duplicity

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:57:10 -0800

anything else is hypocritical moral relativism ... you are not calling for his resignation because he cheated on his wife - you are calling for it because you disagree with his politics and see an opportunity to smear him in short, you're indulging in partisan hackery and duplicity No. Again--i' want him gone because he directly hurts me and mine--that's not partisan hackery nor duplicity--it's called politics. He should himself resign because of his own words, not mine. Because of his own actions, not mine. Because of his own strong and repeated calls for others to step down over shit he himself does, not our calls. Stop calling us names. Vitter set this all up himself. He lived in a glass house and threw stones all the time. You're being an ass, pyramid, and willfully obtuse. All of us are explaining it over and over and you're ignoring our points repeatedly.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:59:08 -0800

The only thing we're doing is HOLDING HIM TO HIS OWN STANDARDS. That's it.

By: chunking express

chunking express — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:15:57 -0800

It's totally alright to make fun of politicians who go around talking about how they are serious ass puritans but then get caught sexing up prostitutes. If we can't mock these people, who can we mock?

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:00:35 -0800

Stop calling us names. he says and then ... You're being an ass you're a hypocrite, amberglow and a sloppy reader ... i called your ACTIONS names, not you i see that you had no problem crossing that line yourself All of us are explaining it over and over and you're ignoring our points repeatedly. that's because your points don't hold water ... you are arguing for a double standard, just as you've just done for name-calling ... you are arguing that its fair to judge some people for deeds and not others ... you are claiming that vitter should be judged according to his adultery when in fact you are judging him for his advocacy of beliefs ... that's dishonest ... if you want to judge him for his beliefs, then be forthright and SAY so ... if you insist on judging him for his adultery, then you must judge EVERYONE for that, not just him that's what the phrase "a government of LAWS, not MEN" means and i find it curious that you didn't care to address the question of whether democrats committing adultery contradicts THEIR party platform and its expression of moral authority ... surely, you're not claiming that democrats have none but, of course, that would require rational thought and consistency, wouldn't it? ... and time and time again on this site, you've demonstrated an inability for both of those ... all you do is drink the kool-aid, mouth the party line and hold your allies to a different standard than your enemies i have no use for that kind of politics and neither does the country if you approve of mudslinging against vitter, than you cannot complain when it's done against those you support ... period ... and all the spin, spin, spin about what people believe is just dishonest argumentation bye bye (room reserved for 4 or 5 links to various articles that echo what you believe so you can "win" the argument)

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:04:49 -0800

'98 Vitter OpEd Calls For Clinton Impeachment "Because He Is Morally Unfit To Govern"

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:18:57 -0800

Fun starts~ page 5. Hmmm ... I'd say so -- they seem to have connected the phone numbers to a former chief-of-staff of a 'very well-known' Senator, the President of a maritime academy, the mayor of a well-known L.A. suburb, etc.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:44:20 -0800

that's because your points don't hold water ... you are arguing for a double standard, just as you've just done for name-calling ... you are arguing that its fair to judge some people for deeds and not others ... you are claiming that vitter should be judged according to his adultery when in fact you are judging him for his advocacy of beliefs ... that's dishonest ... if you want to judge him for his beliefs, then be forthright and SAY so ... if you insist on judging him for his adultery, then you must judge EVERYONE for that, not just him No one has said that here at all. No one has said that only this guy or only Republicans should be judged this way. You're making stuff up and have been the whole thread. And once again, for the 100th time, it's not judging him for his adultery-- but for his hypocrisy, lies and actions against everyone else who doesn't live the way he says they should. I judge everyone, not just Republicans. It's only Republicans and the Christian Right, however, who are demonizing and legislating against me continually.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:46:53 -0800

All public figures have to keep it in their pants. If they can't they're asses. If they can't and their whole career is built on being a good Christian family man who calls for others to resign -- and legislates against the love lives and private lives of others -- then they should live or die by their own statements. It's simple and crystal-clear. He's in hiding now, btw-he hasn't shown up to vote on Iraq or anything.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:35:57 -0800

Flynt: Vitter Used Escort Service in 2001-- ... During his conference, Flynt said that he'd outed Vitter -- and would be outing others, because of his hypocrisy; or as he put it: "I'm not exposing anyone's sex life, I'm only exposing hypocrisy." ...

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:33:45 -0800

Does DeMint have a little secret?

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 18:00:18 -0800

Vitter Diapered?!

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 00:23:27 -0800

Florida Rep. Robert "Bob" Allen, R-Merritt Island, was arrested this afternoon at Veteran's Memorial Park on East Broad Street for solicitation for prostitution. Wow, there's just no end to it.

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 06:41:05 -0800

Flynt: Hustler involved in more than 20 sex scandal investigations.

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 06:51:56 -0800

"As Vitter remained missing in action for two Senate votes on defense policy, Flynt insisted that he exposed the conservative lawmaker’s sexual indiscretions only because they contradicted Vitter’s longtime defense of the 'sanctity of marriage.' 'If someone’s living a life contrary to the way they’re advocating … then they become fair game,' Flynt told reporters. 'I don’t want a man like that legislating for me, especially in the area of morality.'"

Exactly!

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 07:05:23 -0800

Florida Rep. Robert "Bob" Allen, R-Merritt Island...

"Local6 reports: 'Investigators said Allen was acting suspicious and went in and out of the men's restroom at Veteran's Memorial Park, located on East Broad Street...Minutes later, authorities said, Allen solicited the male officer inside the restroom, offering to perform oral sex for $20. Allen was then arrested. Officers realized he was a public figure after the arrest, a news release said. Allen, who is from Merritt Island, was scheduled to be booked into the Brevard County Jail Wednesday night.' Allen is married and has a child. The Miami Herald reports that Allen told a Central Florida television station the incident was 'a very big misunderstanding' and a 'gross mistake.' Said Allen: 'I'm not in anyway associated with that they are saying, this is disgusting.' ...[There is] a wealth of information on this guy, including the fact that he's 'the author of failed Florida House Bill #1475, the "Lewd and Lacivious Behavior Act" which would have made public masturbation in the presence of another adult illegal, whether the other adult consented or not.'"^*

Another hypocrite! They keep ~~cumming~~ coming!

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:01:59 -0800

Whatever a GOP official legislates or rants against, they're inevitably guilty of it themselves--it always happens.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:13:39 -0800

that's right, they're all burning american flags, holding satanic masses, and grinding apple pies under their jackboots when we're not watching

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:18:13 -0800

again, those are your words, pyramid, not ours. Burning the flag is the only one of those that has been legislated against to my knowledge, and i bet we'd find them doing it.

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:27:59 -0800

It's probably part of the Skull & Bones initiation.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:41:16 -0800

again, those are your words, pyramid, not ours what was your first clue? ... the part where it says "posted by"? Burning the flag is the only one of those that has been legislated against to my knowledge, and i bet we'd find them doing it. with their trousers around their knees, wanking furiously, reciting the pledge of allegiance backwards

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:11:10 -0800

GOP Pundit Outed In DC Madam Scandal--... Republican strategist Jack Burkman, echoing right-wing pundit Ann Coulter, whom he was defending, declared that “within hours of those [World Trade Center] towers going down,” the wives of victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks “were ready to make money and exploit this tragedy!”... It's hysterical that their own words aren't good enough for you, but that you have to twist ours and make up stuff. You're trolling.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:20:12 -0800

Republican Sexual Deviants

By: chunking express

chunking express — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:21:14 -0800

with their trousers around their knees, wanking furiously, reciting the pledge of allegiance backwards That's how I would imagine it going down. If the dude had been trying to stop gay people from marrying, chances are he'd be in leather, and some other dude would be doing the wanking, but same idea I suppose.

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:43:14 -0800

Republican Sexual Deviants Also -- Republican Hypocrisy Revealed, Republican Pedophilia and Republican Sex Crimes. The Party of Moral Values!

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:46:17 -0800

Burning the flag is the only one of those that has been legislated against to my knowledge... Has it? I thought it was still legal to burn the flag.

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:48:21 -0800

"The most recent attempt to adopt a flag desecration amendment failed in the United States Senate by one vote on June 27, 2006."^*

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:31:48 -0800

Video: Florida Rep. Robert "Bob" Allen Calls Solicitation Charges "Big Mistake." State Rep. Plans To Plead Not Guilty To Solicitation Charge. Allen's Arrest Affidavit (PDF)

By: chunking express

chunking express — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 07:08:38 -0800

Rep. David Almond (R-NC) is forced to resign after a "personal complaint" comes to light.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 07:29:22 -0800

And Vitter hasn't decided whether to resign or not yet, CNN just said. He's still hiding tho. DeMint made a statement on his behalf. Guardian: A woman accused of running a Washington prostitution ring placed five phone calls to David Vitter while he was a House member, including two received while roll call votes were under way, according to telephone and congressional records. ... Even while at work--hysterical! I should have said "that they bring legislation forward over and over" for the flag-burning--my bad.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:37:37 -0800

The Republican Party is like a gift that keeps on giving. That gift being akin to chlamydia, of course.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:02:28 -0800

GOP Struggles With McCain's Florida Campaign Co-Chair's Oral Sex Bust, Vitter's Diaper Fetish--...Rep. Allen is the author of failed Florida House Bill #1475, the "Lewd and Lecivious Behavior Act" which would have made public masturbation in the presence of another adult illegal, whether the other adult consented or not. ...

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:06:54 -0800

Who Will Be the Next Republican Caught With Their Pants Down?-- ... Although at the moment the more racist of South Carolina's two far right Republican senators, Jim DeMint, is fighting it out with GOP closet case Mitch McConnell over who will run the Republican Senate caucus, he took some time out to worry about his ally David Vitter, like DeMint a xenophobic maniac. Reacting to the revelation that Sen. David Vitter, R-La., patronized brothels and call girls, DeMint told Chad Pergram of the Capitol News Connection radio service, “I think all of us have to look at it and say, ‘We can be next. …

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:47:29 -0800

Isn't public masturbation illegal regardless whether there are observers, adult or not?

By: exogenous

exogenous — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:48:16 -0800

Isn't public masturbation illegal regardless whether there are observers, adult or not? If a tree falls in a forest...

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:57:54 -0800

it's exposure and indecency, i guess, but those crimes have to be observed and brought to the law's attention for them to be crimes, no? Isn't it part of their very definition that they are observed by one or more other people in a public place?

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:36:34 -0800

Times Picayune (NO)--Vitter has decided his own fate

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:50:37 -0800

exogenous: sure, sure. But doesn't this indicate there are a number of laws regarding masturbation? Masturbating in public is one penalty; in public with consenting adults another; in public in view of children another; and potentially more. Seems like a bit of overkill. I'd have thought a single law, heck, a single sentence would have done the trick.

By: exogenous

exogenous — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 19:42:50 -0800

I think the laws are probably against indecent exposure rather than masturbation per se. But fortunately this isn't something I've had cause to study.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:04:03 -0800

editorial cartoon

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 12:33:05 -0800

Vitter has a love child?

By: ericb

ericb — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:23:21 -0800

Local Indiana Councilman Caught with Naked 15-Year-Old Boy and Pills (and he's a Democrat). Official pleads not guilty. He should have heeded the words of Lousiana's Edwin Edwards: "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy"

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:05:19 -0800

Vitter's on tv right now with his wife--she looks devastated, but is being bitchy, and he's just a tool--he's not resigning. And he says the NO rumors (Sen. Pampers?) are lies. Unbelievable.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:33:33 -0800

clip here, along with why he thought Clinton should resign: Is Vitter ‘morally unfit to govern’?

By: amberglow

amberglow — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 08:33:09 -0800

... Sen. David “Ho Luv” Vitter got us all excited by announcing he was going to make a statement, and then instead of a resignation it turned out to be a Huggies moment wherein he “regretted mistakes” or some such horseshit, then said he was staying so he could work on a pet issue… …drumroll…wait for it…. …a water conservation bill of some sort. ...