[Travis]

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Porn Magnate Flynt Funding $1 Million Dollar Quest for Dirt on Perry

Am I the only person who hopes they find credible dirt soon?

[Demon_Hunter]

I dont like Perry, but Im willing to keep an open mind about people. And people like Larry Flint, and yourself, are simply going to jump at any unsubstantiated claim someone brings forward as proof that Perry is dirty.

There probably much better political reasons to dislike Perry.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

This represents everything wrong with American politics.

Where are the folks who were infuriated with the delving into clinton's indiscretions.

Keep in mind I have little love for most of the candidates, but offering a bounty on dirt on a sex scandal is asking for perjury, scandal, and sordid politics at their worst.

FWIW, I don't think I even like Perry, but this is just beyond low and is dirty, for Larry Flint even, and that is simply amazing that that statement could even be made.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Demon_Hunter

I dont like Perry, but Im willing to keep an open mind about people. And people like Larry Flint, and yourself, are simply going to jump at any unsubstantiated claim someone brings forward as proof that Perry is dirty.

There probably much better political reasons to dislike Perry.

First, I don't really appreciate being lumped in with Larry Flynt. I am not sure on what planet we could ever really be put into any of the same categories except that we don't care for Perry.

Second, I admit that I do not have an open mind on Perry. As a Texan, I've been living with him as my governor since George W. Bush left office to become President (and he was our lieutenant before that). So I think I've had sufficient time to form an opinion on him. This whole "I keep an open mind and you don't" shtick isn't going to work. I'd just have to be a fool. or not paying attention to Perry to lack a strong opinion on him by now. And yeah, he is an absolute sleaze-bag.

Third, I highly doubt Flynt is just going to give a million dollars to someone who claims to have had sex with Perry. Obviously anyone could claim as much, but is he really going to give a million dollars to someone for a mere claim that could be denied? Surely not. He will require some evidence or proof for sure. Because the reason he would pay a million dollars for such information is that people will pay attention to that information. If it's unsubstantiated it will just be immediately dismissed and won't hurt Perry at all, which is what Flynt wants to do.

Edit: Just saw that you're a Texan too. Well, I am not sure how old you are, but unless you're very young I am not sure it makes sense to have an "open mind" about Perry. You really don't feel one way or the other? He's been in office for a decade! It's not like we don't know exactly the kind of politician he is. We do.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Where are the folks who were infuriated with the delving into clinton's indiscretions..

I think at this point most Democrats would say that because Republicans gave Clinton so much grief over his sexual conduct, that they now have the right to do the same to Republican candidates, and the Republicans have no right to complain. I hate both parties, but I think Democrats who argue this way probably have a pretty good point.

It would be nice if the focus could actually be on policy rather than distractions, but this is American politics, so there's absolutely no chance of that happening.

[Role Modlin]

Originally Posted by Travis

And yeah, he is an absolute sleaze-bag.

I don't like Perry and will not vote for him but I must ask:

Outside of his politics...you have definite proof he's a sleaze-bag? If not...you're making empty and libelous claims.

If you have the proof...hey...go claim the reward.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Role Modlin

Outside of his politics...you have definite proof he's a sleaze-bag?

Outside his politics? No. I know absolutely nothing about his personal or private life.

I call him a sleaze-bag because of what he's done in office. He's bought and paid for by special interest groups, attempts to give favors to friends through legislation, etc.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Travis

I think at this point most Democrats would say that because Republicans gave Clinton so much grief over his sexual conduct, that they now have the right to do the same to Republican candidates, and the Republicans have no right to complain. I hate both parties, but I think Democrats who argue this way probably have a pretty good point.

But that only works if they will admit to being hypocrites and liars in their defense of Clinton. But even with Clinton, nobody offered a bounty. And besides, there were a host of other issues that were being investigated that turned up the women. And some of the issues such as Paula Jones were accusations of sexual improprieties that were criminal. Sexual harassment, indecent exposure, and other stuff.

Maybe I shouldn't say too much here. Way too much background on some of the Clinton stuff.


But anyway, there is a big difference between investigations into illegal activities that have been reported, and bounty hunting for legal indiscretions.

It would be nice if the focus could actually be on policy rather than distractions, but this is American politics, so there's absolutely no chance of that happening.

And if BS like this works...

Congratulations, it just got worse. What was sucky just got worse.

[Role Modlin]

Originally Posted by Travis

Outside his politics? No. I know absolutely nothing about his personal or private life.

I call him a sleaze-bag because of what he's done in office. He's bought and paid for by special interest groups, attempts to give favors to friends through legislation, etc.

By that definition...most (if not all) politicians are sleaze-bags.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

But that only works if they will admit to being hypocrites and liars in their defense of Clinton. But even with Clinton, nobody offered a bounty. And besides, there were a host of other issues that were being investigated that turned up the women. And some of the issues such as Paula Jones were accusations of sexual improprieties that were criminal. Sexual harassment, indecent exposure, and other stuff.

Maybe I shouldn't say too much here. Way too much background on some of the Clinton stuff.


But anyway, there is a big difference between investigations into illegal activities that have been reported, and bounty hunting for legal indiscretions.



And if BS like this works...

Congratulations, it just got worse. What was sucky just got worse.

Perhaps I am just not as concerned about how a candidate I think would be horrible loses so long as they do. They're all crooks anyway, so to me it's almost like gang-on-gang violence. Unfortunate, but as long as they're all just shooting each other.....

Also, maybe I didn't find this very offensive or objectionable because I already have such a low view of politics that as far as I'm concerned this isn't really much worse than just business as usual.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Role Modlin

By that definition...most (if not all) politicians are sleaze-bags.

Absolutely. I only know of one who I don't think to be an outright criminal!

[Role Modlin]

Originally Posted by Travis

Also, maybe I didn't find this very offensive or objectionable because I already have such a low view of politics that as far as I'm concerned this isn't really much worse than just business as usual.

Originally Posted by Travis

Absolutely. I only know of one who I don't think to be an outright criminal!

I share your disdain.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Travis

Perhaps I am just not as concerned about how a candidate I think would be horrible loses so long as they do. They're all crooks anyway, so to me it's almost like gang-on-gang violence. Unfortunate, but as long as they're all just shooting each other.....

Also, maybe I didn't find this very offensive or objectionable because I already have such a low view of politics that as far as I'm concerned this isn't really much worse than just business as usual.

I don't think it is far off from business as usual. However, it is celebrating the vices of business as usual, which to me shows that one is actually, by celebrating in them, participating in them and contributing to them.

This is more like calling hits than gang on gang violence. It is political character assassination you have condoned here. You may claim to dislike this stuff, but your attitude here is precisely why this BS works. I don't trust politicians. I have met one of the Republican candidates and he was a complete tool. I could make a bunch of claims I could back up about him. I do have quite the background in 90s Republican politics and there are reasons I am far removed from them and why I don't like any of the candidates.

However, sensationalizing the tactics of character assassination and hoping they work is participating in them and stooping to that level. Most men have flaws. However, few have every flaw. There is a decent chance Perry has not been in a scandalous sexual relationship, but this sort of sensationalism poisons the well and could be used against anybody, even the one politician you like. (I am guessing it is the same one many seem to respect.)

[Travis]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

I don't think it is far off from business as usual. However, it is celebrating the vices of business as usual, which to me shows that one is actually, by celebrating in them, participating in them and contributing to them.

This is more like calling hits than gang on gang violence. It is political character assassination you have condoned here. You may claim to dislike this stuff, but your attitude here is precisely why this BS works. I don't trust politicians. I have met one of the Republican candidates and he was a complete tool. I could make a bunch of claims I could back up about him. I do have quite the background in 90s Republican politics and there are reasons I am far removed from them and why I don't like any of the candidates.

However, sensationalizing the tactics of character assassination and hoping they work is participating in them and stooping to that level. Most men have flaws. However, few have every flaw. There is a decent chance Perry has not been in a scandalous sexual relationship, but this sort of sensationalism poisons the well and could be used against anybody, even the one politician you like. (I am guessing it is the same one many seem to respect.)

When a big group of criminals are fighting each other, it just seems a bit strange to me to call foul on being dirty. The entire system is corrupt and there's no honor amongst thieves.

Yeah, I support Ron Paul. I think a billion dollar bounty would fail to turn up dirt on Paul. He is squeaky clean. Believe me, the establishment hates him so much we surely would have heard about it by now.

Remember that stupid "scandal" last election about some white supremacist who gave Paul like $200? They made a big deal about him not giving it back, to which his answer was that he would surely spend the money on something better than the white supremacist would. I mean, EVERY candidate has surely had some freaks and weirdos give their campaigns money, but we hear about one racist who gave Paul a completely unsubstantial sum.

To me it's like we're sitting back and watching various Capos in the Mafia fight for control. Since this Mafia has so much control over how I and others live our lives, I really want the least evil person running it as possible. And since the organization is already about as corrupt, dirty, and evil as possible, it really doesn't matter to me what methods those Capos use to get rid of the worst candidates, so long as those candidates fall by the wayside.

I would rather Perry lose the election because people are sickened by his selling out to special interests, his apparent love for putting people to death, because his foreign policy is insane, etc. But if he loses it because of a sex scandal, that's fine with me, so long as we don't have President Perry.

[Demon_Hunter]

Originally Posted by Travis

First, I don't really appreciate being lumped in with Larry Flynt. I am not sure on what planet we could ever really be put into any of the same categories except that we don't care for Perry.

Its been my experience that in cases like this people are just looking for an excuse to lump dirt on somebody. If you really hope Flynt is succesfull in this then I think its entirely fair to lump you in with him.

If Perry is guilty of some kind of sexual misconduct this is most certainly not the way to dig it up.

Edit: Just saw that you're a Texan too. Well, I am not sure how old you are, but unless you're very young I am not sure it makes sense to have an "open mind" about Perry. You really don't feel one way or the other? He's been in office for a decade! It's not like we don't know exactly the kind of politician he is. We do.

I never said I like Perry, or that I think he is a great, clean politician. I am no Perry fan, but if there are deficiencies with Perry I want them brought up and discussed honestly, not with bounties offered on the most scandalous items someone can come up with.

As far as my age, I am just about 26, so I am old enough to appreciate what has gone on under Perrys administration of this state, and some of Bush's as well. Though I think you are older than me (havnt looked to see if thats in your profile, but I seem to remember that detail about you), you arent so much older that you can lecture me on the lack of a moral bedrock in Perry.