MLA arrested seeking prostitues while at a conference in Minnesota

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

This the is the strawmaniest of strawmen that ever strawed a straw.

I agree...

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by old-fart

So for those saying "who cares what he does on his own time if it doesn't effect his job, including illegal acts" I assume you'd all also be just fine if some MLA went to Thailand, found an 8 year to rape, chopped his or her's head off, stuck it on a spear in the front lawn of the embassy, claimed "diplomatic immunity" and hoped a plane home? Or even didn't make the immunity claim and served time in a Thai jail. He could run his job remotely, couldn't he?

On his own time and all....

Dude should quit his seat, run in a byelection if he thinks he can win, and/or move on with trying to explain to his family his "lapse of judgement". We should expect more of our politicians, not less.

Pretty much all of the things you described there are serious crimes in Canada as well, some of which actually have provisions for prosecution domestically even though they occured on foreign soil. Hardly even close to being comparable.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Pretty much all of the things you described there are serious crimes in Canada as well, some of which actually have provisions for prosecution domestically even though they occured on foreign soil. Hardly even close to being comparable.

Pfft... going to Thailand isn't illegal at all.

Some of you take politics and The Wizard of Oz too seriously.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by old-fart

So for those saying "who cares what he does on his own time if it doesn't effect his job, including illegal acts" I assume you'd all also be just fine if some MLA went to Thailand, found an 8 year to rape, chopped his or her's head off, stuck it on a spear in the front lawn of the embassy, claimed "diplomatic immunity" and hoped a plane home? Or even didn't make the immunity claim and served time in a Thai jail. He could run his job remotely, couldn't he?

On his own time and all....

Dude should quit his seat, run in a byelection if he thinks he can win, and/or move on with trying to explain to his family his "lapse of judgement". We should expect more of our politicians, not less.

Really? Because I don't think it should be illegal for an adult to be able to give the girl money directly, rather than spend it on drinks for two hours before getting some, I am therefore ok with child rape, decapitation, and impaling?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by jammies

Not if everyone just said "who cares?" and moved on. It's only an issue because people make it an issue. And people shouldn't.

As far as him breaking this particular law in the US, I put that at about the equivalent stigma of getting busted in some Third World craphole for not saluting Dear Leader's statue or some such equally absurd regulation. Not that the US is some Third World craphole, but their drug and sex laws are generally reminiscent of one.



You can't be serious. If any kind of stressful event was cause for quitting/being fired from your job, there'd be a handful of people working 800 hour weeks while the rest of us were unemployable.

The main problem I have with this situation is that I abhor the idea that your personal and public life have anything to do with each other. I don't like the current trend towards having companies vet you via social media before hiring, and I don't like how "character" is becoming more important than actually being competent at your job. A tendency to value a superficial upright moral posture over all other qualities only creates pressure for conformity via fear of censure, which is something you find in totalist dictatorships and should have little strength in a supposedly free nation.

Character has always been an important element to look at when hiring. It's become more so with the focus on company culture and "fit".

I guess what this boils down to for me is - he is someone who couldn't keep a vow to his wife, (presumably the one person he loves the most in the world); how can he be trusted to keep his oath of office?

Most likely my view is shaped because I'm a woman; it would explain why it's not shared by many on this forum.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Character has always been an important element to look at when hiring. It's become more so with the focus on company culture and "fit".

I guess what this boils down to for me is - he is someone who couldn't keep a vow to his wife, (presumably the one person he loves the most in the world); how can he be trusted to keep his oath of office?

Most likely my view is shaped because I'm a woman; it would explain why it's not shared by many on this forum.

I don't think the two are related. I don't care for people who cheat on their spouses either but that hasn't got a lot to do with how they do their job.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Character has always been an important element to look at when hiring. It's become more so with the focus on company culture and "fit".

I guess what this boils down to for me is - he is someone who couldn't keep a vow to his wife, (presumably the one person he loves the most in the world); how can he be trusted to keep his oath of office?

Most likely my view is shaped because I'm a woman; it would explain why it's not shared by many on this forum.

So do you think Bill Clinton was unfit for office after getting his legendary hummer? Or what about JFK and his flings with Marilyn Monroe? Some of the best leaders in history have strayed away from their marital vows, it's ridiculous to say that someone is unfit for their job because of issues in their personal life

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

So do you think Bill Clinton was unfit for office after getting his legendary hummer? Or what about JFK and his flings with Marilyn Monroe? Some of the best leaders in history have strayed away from their marital vows, it's ridiculous to say that someone is unfit for their job because of issues in their personal life

Well, neither Clinton nor JFK broke the law by doing that.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Well, neither Clinton nor JFK broke the law by doing that.

First Lady's argument was on the morals, not the legality of what he did

[KelVarnsen]

There is nothing wrong with paying for time and companionship.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

First Lady's argument was on the morals, not the legality of what he did

Fair enough.

[Northendzone]

had to laugh at the front page of the calgary sun yesterday as they had a sensationalistic headline indicating there was a s@x scandal.......i'd hardly say one mla trying to poll a lovely lass of virtue true qualifies as a scandal.....

[jammies]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Most likely my view is shaped because I'm a woman; it would explain why it's not shared by many on this forum.

That's a very passive way of saying "men are pigs". Go ahead and be confrontational, we men relate to that better.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I don't think the two are related. I don't care for people who cheat on their spouses either but that hasn't got a lot to do with how they do their job.

It speaks volumes as to their ethics and willingness to "bend the rules" to serve their own selfish motivations.

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

So do you think Bill Clinton was unfit for office after getting his legendary hummer? Or what about JFK and his flings with Marilyn Monroe? Some of the best leaders in history have strayed away from their marital vows, it's ridiculous to say that someone is unfit for their job because of issues in their personal life

I wouldn't support them. That doesn't mean they shouldn't run for office again. The point that I've been arguing is that Mike Allen should have to face his electorate again. His actions have changed how he is perceived. A by-election would let the people speak. If it's not such a huge deal then he shouldn't have an issue with running in a by-election.

Originally Posted by jammies

That's a very passive way of saying "men are pigs". Go ahead and be confrontational, we men relate to that better.

I said many, not all and I was referring to men being more "accepting" of prostitution; which has been demonstrated by the bulk of the comments.

To be clear "men are pigs" isn't a phrase I would you use. You are the one in control of what you read into posts.

The reality is the demographic of this forum is predominantly young males. I'm a 50 year old woman and that certainly will have an impact on my views.

[PsYcNeT]

This just in, old people tend to be more curmudgeonly and unwilling to be on board with social change.

Film at 11.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by KelVarnsen

There is nothing wrong with paying for time and companionship.

I don't disagree, but after watching a few pretty terrifying documentaries about the exploitation of the girls on Backpages where he apparently went, I would prefer that my MLA wasn't using a site that is heavily used by thugs who basically enslave these girls.

So while I agree that prostitution should to an extent be legalized, I don't think I want an MLA who's through his actions is possibly contributing to human misery.

On top of that, is this guy married?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

This just in, old people tend to be more curmudgeonly and unwilling to be on board with social change.

Film at 11.

What constitutes "old"?

And if someone is against adultry and believes it is an indicator of weak character...they are then unwilling to embrace "social change"?

Fascinating.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I said many, not all and I was referring to men being more "accepting" of prostitution; which has been demonstrated by the bulk of the comments.

Well I guess if you define "accepting of prostitution" as equivalent to "people's private lives are their own business" then that's accurate.

Originally Posted by First Lady

To be clear "men are pigs" isn't a phrase I would you use. You are the one in control of what you read into posts.

Obviously you wouldn't use that phrase. It's too direct. And I'm pretty sure I'm "reading into" exactly what is there.

Originally Posted by First Lady

The reality is the demographic of this forum is predominantly young males. I'm a 50 year old woman and that certainly will have an impact on my views.

I personally form my views upon the smallest possible set of principles and the conclusions to be logically drawn from them. Oddly, it makes no difference as to demographic when issues are approached in this fashion.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't disagree, but after watching a few pretty terrifying documentaries about the exploitation of the girls on Backpages where he apparently went, I would prefer that my MLA wasn't using a site that is heavily used by thugs who basically enslave these girls.

So while I agree that prostitution should to an extent be legalized, I don't think I want an MLA who's through his actions is possibly contributing to human misery.

Exactly. I too don't have a problem with legalizing it, provided it can be done in a way that protects the girls.

On top of that, is this guy married?

Yes.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by jammies

That's a very passive way of saying "men are pigs". Go ahead and be confrontational, we men relate to that better.

At the risk of derailing the thread, I found this podcast interesting last night:

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radi...500/transcript

Ira Glass

Griffin Hansbury.

Julie Snyder

Yeah. And so Griffin was talking to Alex about-- Griffin was born a woman and went to Bryn Mawr, and was a feminist, and really-- you know what I mean?

Ira Glass

Yeah, lesbian feminist.

Julie Snyder

Lesbian feminist. And then so then, Griffin decided to transition, and so he started taking testosterone. And he started taking pretty intense amounts, apparently.

Ira Glass

Like way more than a man has.

Julie Snyder

Yeah, it's like, I think, twice. And so this part of the interview is when Griffin is telling Alex about the effects of the testosterone.

Griffin Hansbury

The most overwhelming feeling is the incredible increase in libido and change in the way that I perceived women and the way I thought about sex. Before testosterone, I would be riding the subway, which is the traditional hotbed of lust in the city. And I would see a woman on the subway, and I would think, she's attractive. I'd like to meet her.

What's that book she's reading? I could talk to her. This is what I would say. There would be a narrative. There would be this stream of language. It would be very verbal.

After testosterone, there was no narrative. There was no language, whatsoever. It was just, I would see a woman who was attractive-- or not attractive. She might have an attractive quality, nice ankles or something, and the rest of her would be fairly unappealing to me. But that was enough to basically just flood my mind with aggressive pornographic images, just one after another.

It was like being in a pornographic movie house in my mind. And I couldn't turn it off. I mean, I could not turn it off. Everything I looked at, everything I touched turned to sex.


Are men pigs, and does testosterone make it so?

However, another recent book I read about suggested that women think about sex as much as men do. I will see if I can find it . . .

Turns Out Women Have Really, Really Strong Sex Drives: Can Men Handle It?

A new book questions the conventional wisdom about female desire. What now?

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/arc...dle-it/276598/

Women want sex just as much as men do, and this drive is "not, for the most part, sparked or sustained by emotional intimacy and safety." When it comes to the craving for sexual variety, the research Bergner assembles suggests that women may be "even less well-suited for monogamy than men."