🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <886c066.0208020655.7b1549dc@posting.google.com>,
justin <justin@cjteam.com> wrote:
>> Condit did nothing wrong, including the alleged sex with interns.
>> What Condit wants to do with his dick with a consensual partner is
>> his (and probably his wife's) business.  That people slammed him
>> and made allegations that he was involved with the death of Levy
>> is the only thing unfair.  Now, he's out of a job because he didn't
>> want to expose too much information about his and Levy's little
>> fling.
>
>
>Frankly, I think that you can't separate people's personal lives from
>the way they act publically.  Condit was a sleaze for cheating on his
>wife, abusing his power to get sex (Traficant did the same thing to

I'm sorry, was there any evidence that he abused his power to get sex,
or was he just being smarmy with enough women to get laid once in a
while?  I think we can very easily separate people's personal
lives with their professional lives.  We do that for virtually all
athletes, most office holders (as long as their personal lives don't
involve some sexual whatevers), virtually all business people (or
are you claiming at all those upright citizens and bastions of
society, paragons of business don't ever fake an expense report or
get a little something when the wife isn't tagging along on a business
trip?).


>get a barn built and got kicked out of congress), and then not owning
>up to the truth when it became public knowledge.  His actions on his
>personal issue cannot be that different from his actions as a

Why's that?  Do congresspersons legislate based on their personal
preferences, or do they represent their constituents?

>congressman.  If he makes poor decisions like this in his personal
>life, how can we honestly expect this sleaze to make decent decisions
>about running our country?  Maybe what traficant did with his personal
>life is none of our business either?  Would you argue that?

Depends on why people voted for him.  Condit and Traficant are members
of congress.  They don't run the country, not by a country mile.  They
legislate (at least that's the official duty).  Their actual duty is
to get reelected, and to do that, they need to placate their constituents,
which means bringing home the bacon, if need be.  And to do that, they
need to wheel and deal, which means if they have the skills to wheel
and deal, they will be successful, based on them being reelected.

If part of wheeling and dealing means doing some willing intern, what
the hell do the constituents care?

My understanding is that what Traficant did in his off hours was criminal.
What Condit did in his off hours was (possibly) immoral.

>
>> Traficant, from what I've read, actually did commit crimes.
>
>As I just said, Traficant used his power to get money and a barn. 
>Condit used his power to get laid.  They're both criminals and should
>not be honored with the responsibility of helping run this country.

Getting laid is not a criminal activity, unless it involved rape, or
sexual harrassment techniques.  I don't recall that Condit sexually
harrassed his female subordinates.  He might have wined and dined them
to get into their pants.  If so, there's no crime in doing so.  Thus,
Condit is hardly a criminal, and even more, his intentions and goals
(in terms of his sexcapades) are not even criminal or even unseemly.


>> Seems like Democrats are capable of distinguishing between right and
>> wrong, between legal and illegal.  Republicans, on the other hand,
>> are quick to look askance when needed and then plead, "I don't
>> recall."  And if pressed further, will bring down the "My country,
>> right or wrong" hammer.  Save me the polemics.
> 
>
>I will not take up for republicans, either.  There are crooks on both
>sides of the aisle.  If Bush bailed out on his dealings with his
>energy company, will he bail out on Isreal?  Our economy?  Our
>protection?  Possibly.  I won't blindly defend either party.
>
>It seems that your decision to defend and victimize Condit, while
>calling Traficant a crook is OBVIOUSLY FLAWED.  Just because someone
>receives money or physical items, we say he's a crook.  When they
>receive sex, it's OK.  What a crock of crap.  Clinton should have been

Look if someone voluntarily gave Traficant money, I can't call it a
crime.  If someone voluntarily gave Condit sex (and in the case of
Levy, it appears to be very consensual, as she indicated that she
has a boyfriend (Condit) who she loves very much, blah, blah... I can't
verify what other women he boinked thought of him).

Again, it appears that you can't distinguish between a criminal act
and personal choice.  If Traficant shook people down for money, it's
a crime.  If people donated money or just gave it to him out of good
will, it's not.  If Condit got sex by holding a person's career or
goodname in blackmail, that's a crime.  If he got some booty because
the woman thought he's cute and charming, and my, what a darling little
winky ya got, that's not a crime.

Lots of guys wish they can get gals to do that.  Some succeed, and none
of them have committed any crimes.

>impeached.  And every congressman who sells out the American public
>for gifts or side money of influencial positions should be jailed. 
>It's ruining this country.  From BOTH sides.

You need to be able to distinguish between selling out and being
gifted.  Of course, there's a lot of gray in that.  Both the giver
and the recipient can claim that it's nothing but a token of affection
(although it's much easier to determine that in the case of sex
being the fungible medium as opposed to money).  If Chandra Levy
only kissed Condit on the cheek, would you ask for his seat in Congress?

Traficant returned favors for the "gifts" he received.  Was there
evidence that Chandra Levy would have gotten some position somewhere
that she would not otherwise obtain on her own, because of Condit's
influence?  Did Lewinsky get any cushy job because Clinton pulled
some strings for her?

EDEW