+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Hookers for the one percent (and John Edwards) (/showthread.php?tid=133866)
Re: Hookers for the one percent (and John Edwards) - $tevie - 03-22-2012
Ah geez, now I feel compelled to ask for proof that your city is "the ONLY city in the country that seriously addresses the real needs of teens who end up in this business."
Except I don't enjoy these "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" arguments. I come here to relax and chat.
I believe that illegal prostitution is a useless idea. I'm sorry but I won't change my mind about that. You as good as admit that it being illegal has done nothing to protect children so why bother?
PS: publishing a list of political and financial big whigs who use hookers does nothing to protect children, either. It's just salacious material for forum threads.
Re: Hookers for the one percent (and John Edwards) - rjmacs - 03-22-2012
Grace62 wrote:
What jurisdiction has legal, regulated prostitution that allows prostitution to exist as a business (i.e. third parties are involved) but no increased problem with exploitation of minors or other related criminal activity? I would like to look at that, but I don't know where that is.
I do know that I live in the the only city in the country that seriously addresses the real needs of teens who end up in this business.
I don't need the lecture about puritanism, why do feel the need to go there?
I've seen no evidence (or claim, even) that legalizing and regulating prostitution has ever increased the problem of exploiting minors or others. Trafficking vulnerable people into the sex trade certainly didn't start with legalization; i'm not sure what the connection is here.
Legalization and regulation of prostitution in Nevada is not associated with increases in exploitation or other related criminal activity as compared with rates of that activity in comparable areas where prostitution is illegal. Nobody is saying that legalizing prostitution will solve 100% of exploitation or end drug abuse or criminal activity writ large. The point is that legalization makes the industry (and it is an industry) more transparent to authorities, provides structures for support and grievance, and clarifies what is happening (most often, a financial transaction, not a moral transgression).
As for Puritanism, i don't think you're a Puritan, grace62. But the argument you're making invokes the discourse that characterizes prostitution as sexual immorality, which is not a useful one IMO. I'm not lecturing - i'm pointing out where that argument has its roots.
Re: Hookers for the one percent (and John Edwards) - Grace62 - 03-22-2012
not a good day for reasonable discussion it seems
Re: Hookers for the one percent (and John Edwards) - mattkime - 03-22-2012
prostitutes are excellent record keepers.
Re: Hookers for the one percent (and John Edwards) - cbelt3 - 03-22-2012
mattkime wrote:
prostitutes are excellent record keepers.
The pros like Anna Gristina most definitely are. The rest are crime statistics.
Re: Hookers for the one percent (and John Edwards) - Bill in NC - 03-22-2012
Now I'm even more sorry that Edwards wasn't the nominee, for the sheer entertainment value alone!
Pass the popcorn while we wait for the next sordid twist...
Re: Hookers for the one percent (and John Edwards) - davester - 03-22-2012
Gotta agree with $tevie and rjmacs. I don't think it's obvious at all that legalizing prostitution results in increased exploitation or crime, and I think it is more likely that the opposite would be true. In fact, pointing out that police in Holland are shutting down brothels illustrates that enforcement is apparently working in a society where some degree of prostitution is legal. If you want to make a tenuous link like this then it is incumbent upon you to provide some robust statistics showing it to be the case.
Re: Hookers for the one percent (and John Edwards) - OWC Jamie - 03-23-2012
Tax Free, too !!!!!.
Re: Hookers for the one percent (and John Edwards) - haikuman - 03-23-2012
First thought that came to mind when I saw this post was tabloid nonsense. Who really cares what
he was doing in 2007 or now ? He has already cooked his own goose so to speak. Why amplify stuff we already get ?
"""not a good day for reasonable discussion it seems"""
Especially when someone voices a contrary opinion:
If they do not agree with you then it is unreasonable *(:>*
Bingo we have a wiener ~!~
Maybe they did not read it correctly or if at all right ?
Funny how that werks . . .
Here ia another load of horse feathers:
"""I do know that I live in the the only city in the country that seriously addresses the real needs of teens who end up in this business."""
Chronically wacky stuff me thinks . . . just amazing
Re: Hookers for the one percent (and John Edwards) - Black - 03-23-2012
$tevie wrote:It's not even relevant to a political discussion forum when the campaign finances the "fun?"
PS: publishing a list of political and financial big whigs who use hookers does nothing to protect children, either. It's just salacious material for forum threads.
Records show the Edwards campaign spent thousands of dollars for near-monthly stays at the Loews Hotels Regency at 540 Park Ave. on the Upper East Side in 2007, along with stays at several other Manhattan hotels including a Comfort Inn on West 39th Street.
The Loews Hotels Regency is also where he reportedly met videographer Rielle Hunter, who bore Edwards a love child while his wife, Elizabeth, battled cancer.
No charges, however, were ever brought against Edwards because pay-for-play sex is difficult to prove.
Read more: http://www.dnainfo.com/20120322/upper-east-side/john-edwards-first-name-uncovered-millionaire-madam-investigation#ixzz1pubwdorH