Jump to content

DC escort lady releases phone numbers


Andrew
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.deborahjeanepalfrey.com/Jeane10c.html

rofl the number of politicians that are going to fall is gonna be fun!

Hell, even a senior AOL person had CNN stop them from reporting on it because he was involved.

Perhaps explaining why the major media decided to ignore the escort story after ABC News spiked it, the phone number for a senior executive for CNN's parent company, AOL Time Warner, appears on PMA records from 1995.

One senator has already apologized. Senator's Number on Escort Service List

I cant wait for the databases to be setup so every number is associated with someone.

It's like Bill Clinton's blow job x1000

D.C. MADAM PHONE RECORDS ONLINE

Looks like someone is phoning the numbers to see who they are.

Senator sorry after number appears on D.C. Madam's list

Those morale Republicans sure know what's best for Americans. It's ok for them to cheat on their wives. But no one else is allowed to. That is just wrong.

Apparently lots of real estate people.

Looks like thousands of people are going to be getting random phone calls in the next 24 hours. Some people are already posting responses they got from phoning. Lots of pissed off people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, but who cares.

Is any person less qualified to do his job when he used those services. I doubt it. The fact that people are judged upon those actions instead of who they are or what they do is an indication of how biased people are.

How many music stars, politicians, actors, taxi drivers or lawyers does it take before people start realising this is as common as it gets and hardly worth the fuss.

I'd like to see Bangbros releasing their IP log's. . then we'll talk again. ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but but. .. ;)

I thought it was about a list, not a single person.

Maybe it's time to look at people in high places just as people to. and like the government should be a representation of it's people. And like every one else, they make mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like that kind of stuff. not the story itself but the all the rumors around it. like gryphon said: is anybody less qualified to do his job now? not, certainly not... but the society likes "scandals" like this even if it's ridicolous. and I'm amused about that. I don't give a damn about it. I don't like most politicians anyway, no matter if they are married and faithful or if they are playboys hanging around at every party that has hot hookers  (as long as they don't finance these parties with MY money) ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point is less that politicians are supposed to be perfect, but that they put so much effort into claiming that they are. Certainly the public doesn't help, putting them in the spotlight and expecting so much of them, but the people themselves could start being a bit more down to earth. When you say that you stand for something, do so. And if you can't, expect to be deposed. It's good form to practice what one preaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well.. a little offtopic, perhaps better to put in the politics and religion tab but:

I think the american election system is incredibly crappy. Money has so much influence on the outcome and the candidates fight each other on personal situations that it is completely rediculous. How can such a person rule the most prominent country in the world if he acts like a lunatic. Bill Clinton IMO was a great president but when his relation with Monica came out many people wanted to see him gone as a president.

Why.. he did his job as a president well and the stuff between him, Hillary and Monica is strictly personal. Ofcourse he loses on believability but it's just realy cheap to attack another person on a personal situation. Especially in politics.. that should just be all about business... not how much he cares about family values...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But family values is everything! If you don't have family values you shouldn't be in office.

Just look at Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, David Vitter. All religious or Republican who believe a lot in family values and such, yet actually didn't practice what they preached.

Clinton was actually delivering almost balanced budgets. Then Bush came in and completely ruined it for the next decade. The stock market is doing good but that is only because the US dollar is now crap (makes it cheaper for any other country to buy their assets). Canada is still presenting balanced budgets which is good.

And yes the American election system is complete crap. A 2 party system is bad, along with the way the election is done is bad. Money does buy everything. In Canada parties are restricted to a certain amount of money to spend, and every donation (above $100 or something) is recorded and put online publicly.

If you want to see how it is done correct, visit http://www.elections.ca/

One of my local MPs (like a congressman in US) received 56,160.00 in donations, and was only allowed to spend 62,664.69 in campaigning. I can download a spreadsheet with each contributor among dozens of other things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, maybe I didn't exactly made myself clear. Family values are important for everyone. But you should not preach family values as a president in the first way. That's simply not your job. If i'm voting for a president, premier, etc... I vote for someone who has realistic plans and comes out thrustworthy. Someone that addresses the pains that are felt by the population. Not because this candidate tells me that the OTHER candidate has a bad history and has a child that's on alcohol. But anyway, generally I agree with what you said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew, Canadian elections are dull and bland.

Somewhat as two parties like crunchy and smooth peanut butter... spreadt over 6 toasts in different proportions. It's no-risk vagueness substituting parliamentary circus of hero with villain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But with more than 2 parties you don't know who will get power (I guess with 2 parties you don't know who will get power either) and the smaller parties will join forces to go against the majority government (which means we get a minority government, so the government doesn't go screwing over the population very easily). In the US one party will get all the power (the president essentially has dictatorship powers) and then they go do whatever they want. Although with the democrats in power in congress it does make it interesting seeing Bush take out the veto stamp every week.

I'll admit the next US election will be very exciting. My point was that the election process in the US is pretty crappy (it's much easier to mark an "X" on a piece of paper than using electronic machines that don't work and making corporations rich, which in Canada it simply pays its people to run the election). Not that it isn't exciting. The US is probably too big for any system to work properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree on differences, while I'm not so sure for its orientation ("passivity" in both cases?). More peripheral countries, calmer, might go to slumber while politicians calculate (in advance, telos?) based on "below the risk level implying loss for going against the grain" (i.e. statu quo with no possibility of direction change = passive). I wonder if we'd see something similar by comparing Rome with provinces, erm.. It's also parts of what FH criticized. So I'm not so sure Canada shows "the way", with similar traits from a different situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But family values is everything! If you don't have family values you shouldn't be in office.

That's why you are not the only one allowed to vote ;)

And the funny thing about voting, you are the people who vote for the people in government. If you don't like him. Don't vote for him. And if you can't make your choice between two people (and a lot of people near you can't either) Run for office yourselves as you all know best. ;)

Sounds stupid. Just keep in mind that the people you are criticising are their because you (or that majority) voted for them. Don't like it that a guy without family values is in government, learn to live with it as a lot of people think he should be there. Don't like the guy in office. Guess what. The majority does. Then again, the beauty of democracy, don't like any of them. Start your own group and get elected.

Now starting your own political party will not help, true. You won't get any votes and people don't vote for staring parties. Which as a result puts the blame back to you. The voters. Who have the means to change things but when it comes down to it rather criticise others then act for themselves.

(I'm gonna get flammed for this,

and Timenn, I know you vote Groen-Links so obviously this doesn't apply to you ;))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which as a result puts the blame back to you. The voters. Who have the means to change things but when it comes down to it rather criticise others then act for themselves.

The way you speak about it gryphon, it looks like utopia.

Like the utopian way of approaching Wikipedia. Sadly, utopias typically do end up crashed "because people didn't make it work" ("rather criticise others then act for themselves"). Humans would need to be "ideal" to make this work as an integral system. There's a glitch.

(*The Federalist Papers discussed about such issues)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Utopia is hardly what I want to compare it to.

It's the sad result of putting power to the people, while the people are not interested it that power. As the power to vote means you have to read up on politics, know a bit about history, economics and keep up with the (real)news (stuff like that). Sadly people can not be bothered to vote for numerous of reasons and always know better then what the elections have come up with. Strange that in a democratic voting system no one really likes the outcome although you all took part in making that outcome happen.

Again, hardly a idealistic Utopian civilisation if you ask me. And my personal opinion is that democracy isn't even close to Utopia as I tend to agree with Plato's view on Democracy.

And I don't like Wikipedia either :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fewer active citizens brings to politicians lots of escorting time, and escorting time brings fewer active citizens. Any of you two propose a solution to switch this vicious cycle's side?

On the prohibitive side of a solution, one would think this to imply routine checks of politicians and harsher penalties for them. But look at things from the other side: preatorian guard prostitutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"While preaching that having sex with anyone other than your wife is immoral and that you are going to hell."

And in particular creating through legislature and rhetoric a climate incredibly hostile to women in the sex industry, particularly in prostitution, which is illegal - and yet they support the industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...