1115.org

Comments

1. Larry wrote:

   I hope the drag the most self-righteous Repugs down to wallow in the gutter, where they belong.

   Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 3:22 pm ¶

2. sarabeth wrote:

   Let’s not totally jump the gun. I too would dearly love to see the Republicans sweep it 30-0, but sex scandals can be a pretty equal opportunity thing.

   Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 3:32 pm ¶

3. sarabeth wrote:

   A good time for me to remind everyone of what I posted on April 30:

   The Deborah Jeane Palfrey client list doesn’t just promise to be an equal opportunity scandal, it also offers us a great little controlled experiment.

   She turned over her phone records to ABC News. They have been diligently going over them, uncovering names. ABC News is going to tell all on May 4, on 20/20. Assuming there’s no intrinsic bias on the part of ABC News, let’s look at how many Republicans are outed, and how many Democrats.

   Sounds like a perfectly reasonable way to judge whether there’s any truth to the belief, universal among liberal blogs, that Republicans are intrinsically sleazier and more criminal than Democrats.

   Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 3:36 pm ¶

4. JimC wrote:

   What are the odds that Larry Flynt will be equally willing to release names of Democrats as Republicans?

   Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 4:57 pm ¶

5. sarabeth wrote:

   Of course. Flynt wants to sell his magazine only to Democrats, not to Republicans.

   Aren’t conservatives supposed to believe in the moral infallibility of the profit motive?

   Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 5:28 pm ¶

6. JimC wrote:

   Larry Flynt, doesn’t he have a history with going up against the conservative right? Plus Larry Flynt is going to sell his “magazines” no matter what political actions he takes. He’s in no financial danger if he only names republicans…

   Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 5:36 pm ¶

7. sarabeth wrote:

   You obviously have zero understanding of the concept of “the profit motive”.

   Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 5:51 pm ¶

8. Nathan wrote:

   I hope some of the names are female! Wouldn’t that be great?

   Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 6:48 pm ¶

9. sarabeth wrote:

   Would certainly be in the spirit of equal opportunity.

   Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 7:03 pm ¶

10. JimC wrote:

    You obviously have zero understanding of the concept of “the profit motive”.

    How would revealing republican names only affect his profits? Do you seriously think Larry Flynt doesn’t know that sex is a greater motivation than politics? He could declare he was absolutely only going to name Republicans on that list and not lose a dime of profits…c’mon….seriously…doesn’t anyone believe otherwise? In fact he may see that as a way to make profits, controversy is his hallmark…

    Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 7:57 pm ¶

11. matt wrote:

    In fact he may see that as a way to make profits, controversy is his hallmark…

    and the more names on the list the more controversy.

    get smarter. make better arguments. stop being such a hack. it’s enough already.

    Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 8:05 pm ¶

12. sarabeth wrote:

    I hereby nominate #10 for THE STUPIDEST THING JIMC ANYONE HAS EVER SAID ON 1115.

    Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 8:14 pm ¶

13. sarabeth wrote:

    My flies-on-the-wall spyware tells me that JimC has just submitted to Larry Flynt the suggestion that the September edition of Penthouse should contain no nudity whatsoever or any reference to sex, because that would be much more controversial than just another nudity-sex issue.

    I quote: “That would be a way to boost profits, because controversy is your hallmark.”

    In business school, in the touchy-feely courses they put in to pad an MBA out to 2 years, they encourage you to ask the question: “What business is this company really in?”, and to think outside the box when coming up with the answer.

    Jimmsey clearly don’t need no damn MBA.

    Returning to my software’s report, JimC went on to request a finder’s fee of 10% of the extra profits.

    For some reason, Flynt responded as follows: “Post a guarantee bond, dude, and you can have, like, 200% of the extra profits.

    Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 8:29 pm ¶

14. JimC wrote:

    Ok, let me frame it this way, in your expert opinion why do you think he wouldn’t just publish Republican names? Do you deny that he would be greatly motivated to embarrass the “moral” party?

    Anyway its stupid to argue about this, we’ll see when his list comes out, if they’re all Republicans, then either I’m right or Democrats are just that wholesome (cough cough)…

    Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 9:14 pm ¶

15. JimC wrote:

    I hereby nominate #10 for THE STUPIDEST THING JIMC ANYONE HAS EVER SAID ON 1115.

    Are you sure? …

    Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 9:18 pm ¶

16. matt wrote:

    Do you deny that he would be greatly motivated to embarrass the “moral” party?

    the hypocrite vitter has already done that.

    Anyway its stupid to argue about this

    it’s stupid to argue anything with someone as intellectually dishonest as you. sarabeth and matt are stupid, stupid people.

    if they’re all Republicans, then either I’m right or Democrats are just that wholesome (cough cough)…

    nothing is stopping any winger outlet, say fox news or drudge, from doing the same thing flynt is doing. hell, they just make shit up anyway, no bounty needed.

    Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 9:22 pm ¶

17. sarabeth wrote:

    in your expert opinion why do you think he wouldn’t just publish Republican names

    go back and read #5. as many times as necessary.

    Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 9:32 pm ¶

18. sarabeth wrote:

    it’s stupid to argue anything with someone as intellectually dishonest as you. sarabeth and matt are stupid, stupid people.

    I hereby nominate this for THE TRUEST THING EVER SAID ON 1115.

    Posted 18 Jul 2007 at 9:34 pm ¶

19. sac wrote:

    Flynt definitely has it out for the Republicans. It’s been representatives of that party that have given him the most trouble throughout his, uh, career. And it’s the self-righteous faux-moral stance of members of that party that he targets, particular such incredible hyporcrites and Henry Hyde. I would not be surprised if Flynt only released Republican names. Anyway, while sex scandals are certainly bi-partisan, the TYPES of sex involved seem to be split down party lines, with Dems preferring to take their chance on the open markets while Repubs prefer the more direct financial transactions. For that reason, I’m betting the vast majority, if not all, of the names come from the GOP.

    Posted 19 Jul 2007 at 7:19 am ¶

20. sac wrote:

    I should add that I find it distasteful to delve into anyone’s personal life. I don’t care if they take Fido out back and give it to him from behind. However, the hypocrisy of someone like Vitter does justify all of this a bit. Just barely.

    Posted 19 Jul 2007 at 7:21 am ¶

21. matt wrote:

    Just barely.

    depends on the definition of barely

    Posted 19 Jul 2007 at 8:19 am ¶

22. Nick in Beantown wrote:

    I hope its Liz Dole. That would be HOT!

    Posted 19 Jul 2007 at 8:22 am ¶

23. Strangely Enough wrote:

    I hope its Liz Dole.

    Ewww… That’s just an order of creepiness that I’m not willing to imagine…

    Posted 19 Jul 2007 at 11:32 am ¶

Post a Comment