Posted on 05/09/2007 6:51:49 AM PDT by Lusis
The resignation of Randall Tobias, the chief of the Bush administration's foreign aid programs, for "personal reasons" following the revelation that he had engaged the services of two escort-service workers has provided rich grist for amusement on the punditry circuit. There was indeed plenty of material for humor in the situation, from Tobias's strong stand in favor of abstinence teaching in AIDS prevention programs to his "I didn't inhale"-style assertion that he never had sex with the women. But the predictable laughs have obscured a much larger issue than hypocrisy in the ranks of social conservatives. The reason Tobias's call-girl adventures became public is that the owner of the Washington, DC-based service, Pamela Martin, is facing prosecution and has turned her records over to news organizations to help pay for her legal defense.
Even those who feel a certain schadenfreude at Tobias's downfall should be asking the question: should there have been a criminal case in the first place?
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
The funny part about your post is that your original post was simply you blowing your language police whistle on another poster . . . and now your panties are in a twist because it happened to you. Typical Zoomie dolt behavior . . . . can dish it out, can't take it.
Well said, I’ve always been amazed that people think legalizing drugs will stop the problems associated with drugs. The gangs just laugh at such ideas, and are ready to sell worse stuff to those in society who don’t benefit from liberalized laws (kids, for example). You can’t put lipstick on a pig and expect anything but a pig.
Ah, but I did not say that. I said that the government secures rights by curbing other ones. I would define a right as being anything that the government doesn't forbid you to do. In the state of anarchy, there is no government, so you aren't forbidden from doing anything, so you have the right to do anything you wish. With a government in place, you are forbidden to murder people. Hence, your right to life is secured, even if it is not expressly secured by the government. You are forbidden to steal, hence your right to property is secured.
I agree with this rule. This is the litmus test I would apply. It does not necessarily have any basis in morality.
By the way, what you said does not contradict anything I said. You have further backing than saying "you just know."
Please tell me you are kidding!
I did 20 years in the C&R biz and have met ladies from every walk of life employed in that profession.
And I don't believe it's God's Plan for any person to be engaged in such a craft.
Fine, is the spread of STDs being curbed? There have been some studies suggesting the spread of STDs by prostitutes being curbed through its legalization.
Talk to sentis1 since he brought it up; he might have something to say about it...
A: Bacause the government hasn't quite figured out a way to tax it...
Mark
Of course I'm not.
Yeah, pretty much because it is immoral. Granted, I’m not going to frown on someone who turns 21 or whatever and goes to Vegas. That’s basically just being a kid, but when that’s your main source of how you get pleasure not only is it pathetic but unhealthy.
The difference is that prostitutes are far more honest about it that the politicians.
Mark
Only an illiterate could have a problem with what I have written. Disagree with the subject... fine, let’s debate.
Maybe I am a “Typical Zoomie”—I’m not ashamed of my schooling. You, however, are not a typical Squid. Most can handle common sense and a conversation. You can’t deal with the subject, so you’d rather argue semantics instead.
Then your definition would be wrong.
Do you have a better definition?
(And in the spirit charity forgive the atrocious pun)
Actually, I have no doubt that the founders wouldn't have seen any problem with the States or localities outlawing prostitution. Constitutionally, I can see them simply saying that it's NOT something that the Constitution would have allowed the federal government to outlaw.
Mark
Bingo. I didn’t think that statement was correct.
During the late 19th Century, women being forced into prostitution was a distinct problem. What “slippery slope” arguments derive from preventing people from being forced into something against their will? If anything, it works against gun control as it works against being able to do things to law abiding citizens, such as disarm them, in support of some greater good (women were often forced into prostitution to pay off legally-acquired debts, debt payment is usually considered a good thing).
Just little things like what that statement was based on. Things like employment, training, experience...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.