Prostitute nails Republican Senator AGAIN!

[top gun]

New Orleans prostitute tied to Vitter passes lie detector test
The Times Picayune / Sept. 10, 2007 / Kate Moran

Weeks after U.S. Sen. David Vitter tried to discredit her allegations, a woman who used to work as a prostitute in New Orleans passed a lie detector test averring that she had a "sexual relationship" with Vitter that lasted at least four months.

Magazine publisher Larry Flynt paid for the woman to take the polygraph test, and he plans to hold a news conference with her at his Beverly Hills office today to unveil the results and challenge the senator to submit to a polygraph.


The woman, Wendy Yow Ellis, claims that she had intercourse with Vitter in a French Quarter apartment at Dauphine and Dumaine streets in 1999, the year the Metairie Republican was elected to Congress.


Ellis, whose maiden name is Wendy Yow, said Monday that she took the polygraph test because Vitter tried to impugn her credibility at a news conference in July, when he denied news reports about his involvement with prostitutes in New Orleans without being specific.


"I have been called a liar all of my life," Ellis said. "This is one time that you can't call me a liar. I have admitted my wrongs. I am not proud of myself for my past, but my integrity and my self-respect mean more to me today than anything."


Flynt paid for Ellis to fly to California to take the polygraph, which was administered by Edward Gelb, a past president of the American Polygraph Association who also gave lie detector tests to the parents of JonBenet Ramsey, the child beauty queen who was found murdered in her family's basement in 1996.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not again. It's another Larry Craig case. He didn't do prostitutes... he did prostitutes. He only did prostitutes in DC... he did the same prostitute 2 or 3 times a week for over 4 months @ $300 a pop in New Orleans.

Real Family Values? OR... Front family values to run as a Republican and Live a lie, Live a Lie, Live a Lie. We already know don't we.

[Castle]

Yeah it is pretty depressing to see republicans conducting themselves like leftist democrats now. At least slick willie had an excuse.....he's a liberal. Depressing indeed.

-Castle

[top gun]

Yeah it is pretty depressing to see republicans conducting themselves like leftist democrats now. At least slick willie had an excuse.....he's a liberal. Depressing indeed.

-Castle

That's not a bad point. Skewed to be smoke & mirrors to the actual events... but worth comparing for sure.

Let's look...

Bill Clinton a Democrat did something wrong. He had a consensual adult affair... he had a girlfriend.

What are the Republicans doing? Trying to seduce male Congressional pages... seeing males prostitues while smoking crystal meth... trying to pick up guys in a public airport restroom for gay bathroom stall sex... steadily & repeatedly paying for sex from prostitutes.

I see what you mean... kinda... but I'm thinking maybe you have it just a little backwards. I think the Dems better not continue down a much worse path and end up acting like "Conservative Republicans". Just a thought! ;)

[USMC the Almighty]

My question is do any of you guys truly think that there is a correlation between political ideology and their social behavior? I mean, it's really kind of silly for you to say that someone who likes low taxes and strong national defense is soliciting bathroom sex because he likes low taxes and strong defense.

[Popeye]

My question is do any of you guys truly think that there is a correlation between political ideology and their social behavior? I mean, it's really kind of silly for you to say that someone who likes low taxes and strong national defense is soliciting bathroom sex because he likes low taxes and strong defense.

There is, without a doubt, a correlation between their political ideology and their behavior. Seems like the farther they are to the right, the closer they are to the bathroom stall or hotel room with their boyfriend. You see, many of these type Republicans are in the closet and they try to keep the door closed by professing "family values".

[top gun]

My question is do any of you guys truly think that there is a correlation between political ideology and their social behavior? I mean, it's really kind of silly for you to say that someone who likes low taxes and strong national defense is soliciting bathroom sex because he likes low taxes and strong defense.

Definately... Absolutely!!!

Just like in a court of law this goes straight to character. Anyone who would so perversely rail against things politically that they themselves whole heartedly enjoy and engage in lose credibility and cannot/should not be trusted on other positions they take.

And the real problem is it is becoming pervasive in the Republican Party. I don't think there has ever been this small of a time frame when so many Republicans are seducing Congressional pages, smoking crystal meth with male prostitutes, trying to have gay public restroom stall sex and paying prostitutes for sex in DC and New Orleans.

I mean I'm not really up on all things Republican... maybe there's was a time when Republicans got caught doing more gay & sleazy sex stuff and I just don't remember it. But still...

It's a gosh darn epidemic. I mean it's even got its own name now. It's called Elepantitis! :D

[USMC the Almighty]

4 out of 1000s equates to an epidemic in your mind. I really can't get over the fact that you think people believing in limited government or secure borders seek gay sex because of that.

So what if someone is a Democrat that one day moves Republican like so many did on 9/11. Does their social behavior instantly change with the shift in ideology?

This entire thing is silly. There are certainly plenty of weirdos to go around. Inevitably, they make their way into politics. The libs are just better at hiding their weirdos.

[Popeye]

4 out of 1000s equates to an epidemic in your mind. I really can't get over the fact that you think people believing in limited government or secure borders seek gay sex because of that.



Not an epidemic, but apparently endemic to "family values" Republicans. The GOP, what a party to be ashamed of.

[USMC the Almighty]

Not an epidemic, but apparently endemic to "family values" Republicans. The GOP, what a party to be ashamed of.

I'm certainly not proud of the recent batch of Republicans. Are you proud of your side?

[9sublime]

I think most people are not proud with very many of the politicans who supposedly represent their side. However, I am proud of the left wing, its ideoligies, rather than the people who are supposed to represent me in politics.

[vyo476]

I think most people are not proud with very many of the politicans who supposedly represent their side.

In fact it's damn near impossible to find someone who is proud of his or her politicians. I know one, and she's from Barney Frank's district in southern Mass.

[USMC the Almighty]

However, I am proud of the left wing, its ideoligies, rather than the people who are supposed to represent me in politics.

I feel the same way about conservatism. But recently, some of us here haven't been able to separate the politicians from the philosophy.

[top gun]

4 out of 1000s equates to an epidemic in your mind. I really can't get over the fact that you think people believing in limited government or secure borders seek gay sex because of that.

So what if someone is a Democrat that one day moves Republican like so many did on 9/11. Does their social behavior instantly change with the shift in ideology?

This entire thing is silly. There are certainly plenty of weirdos to go around. Inevitably, they make their way into politics. The libs are just better at hiding their weirdos.

I don't blame Republicans for doing everything in their power to down play the facts.

Elephantitis is spreading. The Republican "Family Values" and "gay is a sin" campaign now has a much credibility as Jim Bakker trying to come back and sell tickets to PTL's Heritage Village vacation park. :)

On the Democrat turned Republican question I know this thread comes off as if there are no good Republican. Of course there are. It would be dishonest to say there aren't some good intended Republicans. That though in no way should stop people from saying WOW... look at the hypocrisy within the Republican Party today.

Another important thing that Republicans are trying their best to spin is demonizing it's own that have stood up and aggressively said, "We need to start pulling out of Iraq now. The administration is not doing the right thing. The Iraq occupation is not making us any safer here at home. This is nothing more than buying time to dump this problem on the next president."

Republicans Hagel (decorated Vietnam Vet) & Warner (head of Senate Armed Services committee) aren't even going to run for re-election. Can you give us one reason... just one... why they would speak out like this against the war if they truly did not believe what they're saying is totally 100% the truth? You can't... they have absolutely no reason to lie and every reason to just be quiet.

They're were both highly respected in the Republican Party.
They have no scandal to deflect.
They both have the military knowledge needed to make such a decision.
They could easily go into Republican retirement with back slapping and hand shakes all around.

But they will not lie and go along with the Republican Party line.

A lot of deceit going on in the Republican Party these days but there are some Republicans that try to stand up and tell it like it really is... so you are right about that. It's a shame there are not more Hagel & Warners.

[TVoffBrainOn]

4 out of 1000s equates to an epidemic in your mind. I really can't get over the fact that you think people believing in limited government or secure borders seek gay sex because of that.

Im still surprised that you think that the modern republican party even remotely represents any sort of conservative ideology. The Bush administration enjoyed 6 years of a free pass republican congress. They got nothing done on the border, the government has grown, family values...please, spending was out of control, etc.

[9sublime]

I don't know about you Americans, but I can barely distinguish between my two leading parties thesedays.

Labour? Probably more right wing than the conservatives. Maybe Gordon Brown will bring some change, but I doubt it.

[Popeye]

I don't know about you Americans, but I can barely distinguish between my two leading parties thesedays.

Labour? Probably more right wing than the conservatives. Maybe Gordon Brown will bring some change, but I doubt it.

What about the Liberals? At least you have a liberal party, we, on the left, are stuck in a constant war trying to pull the Democrats away from the middle. A middle that's defined by the Republicans moving farther and farther to the right, thus pulling the political center along with them. When I vote, it's almost always a lesser of the two evils proposition.

[9sublime]

Just like in the US, we have only two parties with a decent chance of winning. Labour is supposed to be the left wing party, but Blair changed it all around with his buttkissing Bush antics. Now the Conservative party and the ones who want to get rid of the Terrorism Act (something along the lines of your patriot act) and give people back a bit of individual freedom.

The other party, the Liberal Democracts, and third, and by a distance big enough that they wont ever have a fair chance at power for at least another 20 years. They're policies are generally better, but they tend to have terrible leaders who would be unable to cope with being Prime Minister.

[USMC the Almighty]

What about the Liberals? At least you have a liberal party, we, on the left, are stuck in a constant war trying to pull the Democrats away from the middle. A middle that's defined by the Republicans moving farther and farther to the right, thus pulling the political center along with them. When I vote, it's almost always a lesser of the two evils proposition.

Popeye, what are you talking about? I would love to see you attempt to back this post up.

[Popeye]

Popeye, what are you talking about? I would love to see you attempt to back this post up.

Here's the facts, the Republican party continues to move farther and farther to the right. Richard Nixon would be considered a moderate Republican by todays standards. Heck, he signed such things as the Clean Water Act, today's Republicans are only interested in raping the environment. They're also being pushed farther to the right by their Bible toting friends, who actually believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, like foolish children who believe in fairy tales. The farther to the right the Republicans go, the closer they get to fascism.

[palerider]

Here's the facts, the Republican party continues to move farther and farther to the right. Richard Nixon would be considered a moderate Republican by todays standards. Heck, he signed such things as the Clean Water Act, today's Republicans are only interested in raping the environment. They're also being pushed farther to the right by their Bible toting friends, who actually believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, like foolish children who believe in fairy tales. The farther to the right the Republicans go, the closer they get to fascism.

You call the largest entitlement program ever a move to the right? How about that incredibly wasteful education bill? As with practically everything you say, it is just words and quite impossible to back up with anything approaching fact. Conservatives didn't vote in droves during the last midterm election precicely because the republicans and bush were drifting to the left with their wasteful and excessive spending on big government programs.

You really don't put much thought into anything you say, do you?

[Popeye]

Conservatives didn't vote in droves during the last midterm election precicely because the republicans and bush were drifting to the left with their wasteful and excessive spending on big government programs.

You really don't put much thought into anything you say, do you?

I'm glad you have figured out why the Republicans were defeated in the last mid-term elections. I'm sure it had absolutely nothing to do with the war in Iraq. Also, let it be known, I put absolutely no thought into this post.

[vyo476]

Let's take a look at the political spectrum. The Left-Right spectrum is determined by a number of factors. The major ones are as follows:

Economic Policies (interventionism vs. laissez-faire)

Bureaucracy Policies (large government vs. small government)

Employment Policies (workers' rights vs. employers' rights)

Equality Policies (equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity)

Religious Policies (secularism vs. religiosity)

Tradition Policies (innovation vs. traditionalism)

Cultural Policies (law dictates culture vs. culture dictates law)

Beliefs of Human Nature (malleable vs. fixed)

Okay, now that we have those up, we need to recognize that the Democratic and Republican Parties are (supposed) to represent the left and right, respectively. So you can't just say, "Well, the Republicans are moving right because they support tax cuts!" because that's what they're supposed to do. If you want to prove they're moving right, you have to show that (as an example I pulled out of thin air that isn't necessarily true) the Republicans have been cutting taxes even more virulently today than they were twenty years ago. If you want to prove they're moving to the right you have to prove there's more of religious connotation to the GOP now then there was twenty years ago. You get the picture.

EDIT: If anyone's curious, I got the thing on Left-Right politics off Wikipedia. Here's the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-Right_politics#Definitions

[palerider]

I'm glad you have figured out why the Republicans were defeated in the last mid-term elections. I'm sure it had absolutely nothing to do with the war in Iraq. Also, let it be known, I put absolutely no thought into this post.

Since the republicans lost, exactly what has changed with regard to the war? Are you saying that the democrats were put back in power by people who thought that they woud do something about the war and the democrats have let them down? Are you saying that the democrats lied when they made their campaign promises? Are you saying that democrats can't be trusted when they promise that they will do a thing if sent to washington?

[Popeye]

Since the republicans lost, exactly what has changed with regard to the war? Are you saying that the democrats were put back in power by people who thought that they woud do something about the war and the democrats have let them down? Are you saying that the democrats lied when they made their campaign promises? Are you saying that democrats can't be trusted when they promise that they will do a thing if sent to washington?

You're right, nothing has changed with this ill conceived war. Part of it has to do with Republican filibusters, part of it with the fact that not all Democrats agree on what to do about the war. That not all Democratic congressmen agree on the war shows an independence that has rarely been exhibited by their Republican counterparts, who, until it became obvious the war was a mistake, supported every foolish administration move. What I am saying is, according to exit polls, the main issue for people who voted Democrat was the war in Iraq.

[palerider]

You're right, nothing has changed with this ill conceived war. Part of it has to do with Republican filibusters, part of it with the fact that not all Democrats agree on what to do about the war. That not all Democratic congressmen agree on the war shows an independence that has rarely been exhibited by their Republican counterparts, who, until it became obvious the war was a mistake, supported every foolish administration move. What I am saying is, according to exit polls, the main issue for people who voted Democrat was the war in Iraq.

The republicans never stopped a vote. The vote to pull out was 52-47. The vote needed was 60-40. Not even close.

The issue for conservatives, however, was the bush administrations move to the left with regard to spending. The democrats didn't win because of the war, the democrats won because conservatives didn't come out and vote, and conservatives didn't come out because of disgust with the new and excessive entitlement spending.

[Popeye]

The republicans never stopped a vote. The vote to pull out was 52-47. The vote needed was 60-40. Not even close.

The issue for conservatives, however, was the bush administrations move to the left with regard to spending. The democrats didn't win because of the war, the democrats won because conservatives didn't come out and vote, and conservatives didn't come out because of disgust with the new and excessive entitlement spending.

Unless I am mistaken, the reason a super majority of 60 votes was needed was to prevent a Republican filibuster. Maybe not a filibuster in the strictest sense, but a threat of one. As to the election, are you seriously asserting that the main reason for Republican defeat in 2006 was excessive entitlement spending by their own congress? If that's the case, exactly how much of a role would you say Iraq played in the overwhelming repudiation of the Republicans in 2006?

[jb_1430]

[COLOR="DarkRed"][Just like in a court of law this goes straight to character. Anyone who would so perversely rail against things politically that they themselves whole heartedly enjoy and engage in lose credibility and cannot/should not be trusted on other positions they take.




????? I dont think Craig wanted to marry the guy in the next stall.

[top gun]

????? I dont think Craig wanted to marry the guy in the next stall.

I think we're in agreement... I don't think Republican Congressman Larry Craig had ANYTHING as honorable as marriage on his mind. He wanted a purely sexual interaction... very hypocritical indeed!

Unless he's been promoting all that... and I just somehow missed it. ;)

A little bit too vivid their with your description, top gun. Not really necessary. -- USMC

[9sublime]

I think theres another thread for the territory we've wandered into, and that this one was originally about Hugo Chavez!

[top gun]

I think we're in agreement... I don't think Republican Congressman Larry Craig had ANYTHING as honorable as marriage on his mind. He wanted a purely sexual interaction... very hypocritical indeed!

Unless he's been promoting all that... and I just somehow missed it. ;)

A little bit too vivid their with your description, top gun. Not really necessary. -- USMC

I'm answering a question with no foul language? What words are now not allowed... anal... anal sex... BJ... These words are posted all over this forum. In the homosexuality threads, anal everywhere. Bill Clinton threads, BJ everywhere. The post should be allowed to stand as it was. Far worse has been written and not moderator altered.

Censorship... amazing.

[USMC the Almighty]

C'mon top gun, you're sounding like Roker. I didn't "censor" anything. Your post stands but the vivid description of exactly what you fantasize the interaction would've resulted in is not really necessary. Any of those words alone are okay in small doses (but if it gets to prevalent, the mods will rein it back in), but all of them together in a sentence combined with "hot", "steamy", and the like is entirely uncalled for.

We're just trying to keep this place on a civil and relatively high intelligence level. You're a lot smarter than that, top gun, you don't have sink to that level with your posts.

[top gun]

C'mon top gun, you're sounding like Roker. I didn't "censor" anything. Your post stands but the vivid description of exactly what you fantasize the interaction would've resulted in is not really necessary. Any of those words alone are okay in small doses (but if it gets to prevalent, the mods will rein it back in), but all of them together in a sentence combined with "hot", "steamy", and the like is entirely uncalled for.

We're just trying to keep this place on a civil and relatively high intelligence level. You're a lot smarter than that, top gun, you don't have sink to that level with your posts.

I understand what you're saying Almighty. But try to understand what I'm saying. In a person trying to express their own interpretation of a situation they use the words they feel most represents the possibilities as they see them. In trying to highlight someones thought process as one sees it... it makes a huge difference.

What you do when you change words that are not obscene but just convey a thought in a way you disagree with... that is forcing one side to be politically correct. You can see that. Come on you're a fair guy that's the actual definition of forcing politically correctness.

If I say he was looking for steamy gay sex and you change it to he was looking for a purely sexual interaction why not just change it to he was just looking for love. People should be able to put things in their own words. If not it's unfair watering down of a position or a posters intended statement.

I respect your authority but I hope you'll consider what I've said.

[USMC the Almighty]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]I understand what you're saying Almighty. But try to understand what I'm saying. In a person trying to express their own interpretation of a situation they use the words they feel most represents the possibilities as they see them. In trying to highlight someones thought process as one sees it... it makes a huge difference.

What you do when you change words that are not obscene but just convey a thought in a way you disagree with... that is forcing one side to be politically correct. You can see that. Come on you're a fair guy that's the actual definition of forcing politically correctness.

I see what you're saying but disagree. Political correctness would be if I prevented you from saying that it was in a bathroom stall or he was looking for another man. If I only allowed you to say that he was looking to have an extramarital affair, then you'd have a legitimate complaint. In my opinion, describing the specific sexual activites that you predict he would have done in such a vivid manner is not really appropriate or necessary. You got your point across loud and clear (multiple times).



If I say he was looking for steamy gay sex and you change it to he was looking for a purely sexual interaction why not just change it to he was just looking for love. People should be able to put things in their own words. If not it's unfair watering down of a position or a posters intended statement.

Because if I said he was "looking for love" that would be changing the meaning of your statement. Craig obviously was just looking for sex and that's what you said. However, I found the way you said it to be a bit over the top.