Jump to content

Guiliani's at it again! :-(


Justice
 Share

This topic is 7552 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

I see in today's New York Post that Mayor Guiliani is continuing his attacks on the adult entertainment industry. (I suspect that The Gaiety will be among his many targets.) To add insult to injury, the article notes that the four democratic candidates for mayor support his plans. (And we all thought that things would get better once Guiliani left office. Sigh!)

 

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/27477.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the domocrat's support of the plan shows the effect of bill and hillary clinton on the party. those two had no moral beliefs; they only believed in what would give them personal advantage. some politicians like harry truman or ronald regan (i can hear the hissing and boos) had a moral core and stuck to it reguardless of polls. the new democratic moral core is look at the polls and follow them, not lead.

 

harry truman went against popular opinion and intergrated the armed forces well over a decade ahead of the civil rights' laws; a reason for his low poll numbers; this was something he believed was right a did it. bill clinton started to have openly gay members of the military and high tailed it to "don't ask" as soon as he saw it was unpopular.

 

bill and hillary and al gore looked at the poll numbers and all came out against gay marriage. not even a peep about civil unions to give gay couples the same rights without marriage such as a partner's social security benefits, etc. the democratic party wants nothing to do with gay marriage or civil unions.

 

newsweek reported bill clinton making lesbian jokes after leaving office. that's something that shows his real self and how big a phoney the clintons were about being "friends" of gays.

 

the gay community needs to wake up to the fact that while the republicans are not gay-friendly, they are at least open about it. the democratic party will take all the gay money and votes it can but under the surface, gay issues are not supported. hillary clinton will turn out to be bill's best pupil; look for her to follow the polls and like bill not be a leader; she has no moral core beliefs except to do what will get her ahead.

 

gays should not feel too bad about being bamboozled by the clintons. bill now plays golf at white only country clubs (he never would have done that while in office); the jews are responsible for the pardon problems; women's rights to be free of sexual harassment are set back decades (it'll be fun to see the democratic reaction to the next republician that fondles a woman employee or asks her for sex); etc.

 

the democratic men runnimg for mayor of new york are just following the tone set by bill and hillary clinton; they saw what worked to get votes, money and how to be elected and be "popular". harry truman left with the lowest poll numbers of any modern president but is now considered great because he followed his moral beliefs and did what is right.

 

my suggestion to gay new yorkers is to show their feelings and power by sitting on the sidelines with money, workers and votes until there are candidates who have strong beliefs on gay rights and lead and not follow. in my old age, i've become a cynic after the clinton years and what they did to the democratic party.

 

by the way, i gave money and support to bill bradley. his record and beliefs on gay rights was much stronger than al gore's. he was a man of principle and strong moral beliefs and could have helped restore the democratic party's morals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I have mixed feelings on all of this. First, let me say that the Democrats have to agree with Guiliani on this or they would be branded XXX whores or something like that. It is inconceivable that a politician would agree with porn, however that does not mean that the politician, if elected, will do anything more. In other words, most politicians whether Democrat or Republican would do nothing. It's not a priority. Guiliani is quite different.

 

Now, my mixed feelings involve this: on the one hand, by closing access to such XXX venues, my own escorting may indeed increase because men will seek outlets that can be found in escorts. On the other hand, I also shoot XXX videos myself and access to them would be diminished with the closing of such shops. My belief is that this will wind up in court way past Guiliani's regime comes to an end, and then it probably would not be observed if the law determines that Guiliani was correct because he would no longer be there. Unless a staunch Conservative comes to power, I doubt that we'd have much to worry about.

 

Cheers,

 

Eric Magyar

http://ericmagyar.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Kenny

>

 

"bill clinton started

>to have openly gay members

>of the military and high

>tailed it to "don't ask"

>as soon as he saw

>it was unpopular. "

 

And if he hadn't done that, his whole administration would have been dumped down the river for the next 4 years.....You claim that they have no moral values or beliefs yet you seem to admit that he stuck to his promise to gays to "allow gays in the military" to be his first act upon reaching office. Well buster, he did that and was promptly ambushed by those republicans who found something to derail him and his agenda....thanks in part to none other then Sam Nunn, who probably was the most homophobe of all the senators involved in the debacle.

>

>"bill and hillary and al gore

>looked at the poll numbers

>and all came out against

>gay marriage. not even a

>peep about civil unions to

>give gay couples the same

>rights without marriage such as

>a partner's social security benefits,

>etc. the democratic party wants

>nothing to do with gay

>marriage or civil unions."

 

Again pal, if you would have checked your facts you would have seen that Al Gore did indeed support civil unions and benefits for gays. Yes, it is very unpopular to support gay marriage and do do so would assure your not winning any votes BUT he and Hillary both support gay unions and benefits associated with them.

>

>newsweek reported bill clinton making lesbian

>jokes after leaving office. that's

>something that shows his real

>self and how big a

>phoney the clintons were about

>being "friends" of gays.

 

Well, this is the firstI've heard of "lesbian jokes" and can't comment on something I don't know anything about BUT what if he did make a job involving lesbians? Are you saying that you have never told a joke involving gays,blacks, jews, poles, etc. etc. etc.? And if you did does that make you a bigot? (obviously that appears to be what you are implying).

 

"the gay community needs to wake

>up to the fact that

>while the republicans are not

>gay-friendly, they are at least

>open about it. the democratic

>party will take all the

>gay money and votes it

>can but under the surface,

>gay issues are not supported."

 

Again, are you implying that the Republicans are better than Democrats because they are open about being homophobic? Democrats have been open about supporting gay issues and talk about it PUBLICALLY. Except for "gay marriage", NOT "gay unions", what gay issue have the democrats not supported.

Sure, the republicans cater to the far right anti gay groups that absolutely despise Gays, because it gets them votes. Democrats cater to the liberals because it gets them their votes. If you are implying that democrats are assholes because "under the surface gay issues are not supported, again show where. All gay issues have been championed by democrats with the exception of "marriage" which, by the way, is shown to be rejected by a vast majority of Americans.

 

>"hillary clinton will turn out

>to be bill's best pupil;

>look for her to follow

>the polls and like bill

>not be a leader; she

>has no moral core beliefs

>except to do what will

>get her ahead."

 

Gee, Hillary has no moral core beliefs except to do what will get her ahead. Well, IT'S POLITICS MISTER.

 

>gays should not feel too bad

>about being bamboozled by the

>clintons. bill now plays golf

>at white only country clubs

>(he never would have done

>that while in office);

 

OK, WHICH WHITES ONLY CLUB DOES HE PLAY AT? OH, does he do that with his best friend, The black man, Vernon Jordan, who was involved in the Monica scandal??

 

 

" women's rights to

>be free of sexual harassment

>are set back decades

 

Where are women's rights to be free of sexual harassment been sent back decades?? Could you be referring to Monica's persuit of Clinton? If you know anything about that you do know that SHE WAS THE ONE who pushed it.

>

>"(it'll

>be fun to see the

>democratic reaction to the next

>republician that fondles a woman

>employee or asks her for

>sex); etc."

 

Could you be referring to the republicans sex scandals like Newt Gingrich or the Speaker of the House whose name I can't remember because he only lasted 3 days and had to resign after his scandal broke out.

 

>by the way, i gave money

>and support to bill bradley.

>his record and beliefs on

>gay rights was much stronger

>than al gore's. he was

>a man of principle and

>strong moral beliefs and could

>have helped restore the democratic

>party's morals.

 

Bill Bradley had such strong principles and strong moral beliefs in restoring the democratic party's morals that he personally saw to it that Bush won the election. He was responsible for Al Gore's loosing the election and electing a Republican to office....that's how much he respected the democrats.

 

OK, I think I've gone on enough on this issue but before you denegrate democrats, look at the alternatives and check your facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if the democrats were so progay, why didn't they pass civil union legislation in clinton's first two years when they controlled the white house and congress? the opportunity was there but not the will.

 

clinton's sexual harassment of women does not include monica (she was very much a willing partner) who it appears the leader of the free world could not resist and was helpless in her power. i was refering to paula jones (asking an employee to perform oral sex with his pants down; what businessman could get away with that); anita broderic (rape); katherine wiley (unwanted touching);etc. this is the sexual harassment to which i was refering.

 

bill bradley did not cost gore the election. there were a number of factors. perhaps you were refering to ralph nader; could you have your facts wrong????? i believe bill bradley supported al gore after the primary. but as you know my memory is not very good.

 

i suggest you read a bio on truman. he did many unpopular things but he did what he believed was right. hail and brimstone came down on him but he held the course. so i guess bill's excuse was "i had to abandon the gays in the military so my administration could accomplish other great things". it is too soon to do a historical analysis of the clinton years (it always take some time to get the proper view) but an early reading will not call these eight years "great" but average at best.

 

remember, the democrats controlled congress those first years so if they supported the gays in the military the policy would have stuck. with their leader in retreat, the rest of the flock followed.

 

i suggest you read the long postings on the muscle service site on "golfing at white only country clubs". bill only cares about bill.

 

my main point in posting is that given a chance the democrats seem to act like republicans. the statements by the candidates in the mayor's race are a case in point. it seems there is not alot of difference on some issues between the parties. xxxrated businesses have their place even if the majority does not like it. you would think at least one democrat would recognize the first amendment issues. some cities have allowed xxxrated places in certain areas and with restrictions; why have none of the democrats suggested this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pickwick

Guys, let me say two things.

 

First, being gay doesn't mean you approve of pornography or prostitution. It's wrong to suggest that a politician is betraying the gay community by opposing those things.

 

Second, it doesn't make sense to excoriate the Democrats for supporting some elements of the gay agenda and not others. Like the Republicans, the Democrats are a coalition of interest groups. Being part of a coalition means that you get support on some of your issues but have to give way on others. Other members of the coalition are not going to agree with you on some things, and if you get to have everything your own way then why would THEY want to belong to the coalition? There are Republicans who are pro-choice but support the party because of its stand on economic and trade issues. There are Republicans who want protectionism rather than free trade but support the party because they are pro-life. That's how politics in this country works.

 

And the third of the two things I want to say is that anyone who thinks there's no difference between the two parties (as a lot of people said before the election) needs to look at Bush's decisions on CO2 emissions, arsenic levels in drinking water, support for international family planning programs, and judicial nominations. Gore would not have made any of those decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest albinorat

I agree with Eric Magyar. First of all this is a NYC issue. It is determined by the extraordinary financial boom in the city that began around 1990 and may (or may not) have peaked.

 

People paying sky high rents, and high taxes on owned properties, well to do people afraid of being mugged by "prowling men", people who don't want the children they are sending to expensive private schools (and even the third tier and "yes your kid is stupid and would be better off in a public school but we'll take your money" ones cost a fortune in NY) don't want them passing lurid images in Newsstands, or wandering into stores that have X rated materials prominently displayed.

 

Times Square came back miraculously; it is now booming and a huge tourist trap. The families that flock there, foreign and domestic, do not want to see stores which are flaunting XXX rated material. Though most of those stores have been closed on 42nd itself, there are others quite near.

 

The City, which has a huge budget, depends on the tax base of high rent, high earning citizens, and free spending tourists and this supports, indeed propels whatever "moral" stand Giuliani is taking. (Let us remember he has lived apart from his wife and children for years and has been involved in two adulterous relationships in that time, despite his Catholicism and "morality").

 

One bad side of this for clients has been the shuttering of "hustler" bars like Rounds -- still in my opinion the best way to meet escorts: face to face, enough conversation, eye contact, when both are in the mood and so on. Property values soared around 53rd and 3rd and harassing the bar, and guys working the streets near it was forced by the community. The "operation" was expensive, and successful.

 

Morality and party affiliation have nothing to do with it. If there is a crash in NY you will see a change and all the sin will come back. If there is continued growth the will and means to force "porn" and "prostitutes" who work in public (defined broadly to include the "dancing boys" places as well) will be there and will be even more vigilantly enforced.

 

I would expect the current Republican regime nationally to focus on porn and on "sexual exploitation" on the 'Net. How successful they will be will depend. But I would expect no mercy from AG John Ashcroft. But again if this recent down turn is the real thing, there's a recession, Bush in unable to establish himself credibly, there ends up being panic, resentment and distrust (as there was with his dada in the end) such efforts might be blunted.

 

I think the first posters are a little naive. Most politics everywhere is immoral, if by that you mean opportunistic, hypocritical and inclined to pander to the stupid and uninformed. Ours is worse than some because of the vast sums of money that need to be raised even to pass a fart in a political contest. Meanwhile, once a president is elected he has to deal with Congress who can kill, slow down, water down, stall all his initiatives. There are those who think "Our Founding Fathers" foresaw this paralysis and thought it would be a good thing.

 

Al

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. That's why I tend to vote for the issue or the candidate rather than the party. (I've been a registered democrat for over 30 years.) In the last Presidential election I was so unhappy with the choices offered to me, that I seriously considered doing a write in candidate for "Mickey Mouse". (I've done that on the local/State level and plan to do it again in May when the small city that I live in votes for mayor and in November when New Jersey votes for Governor.) At the last minute, I decided to vote for the Libertarian presidential candidate. (The Libertarians -- by the way -- are the only political party to has the courage to call for the repeal of laws prohibiting "victimless" crimes such as prostitution.) If enough people start supporting "Mickey Mouse" and/or third party candidates, then maybe, just maybe, both the dems and the republicans will stop pandering to their extreme constituencies and start paying attention to the issues that really matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with you Al, no one wants to be confronted with xxx stuff. You also have to admit that no one want a street walker, hustler, brothel or massage parlor in their neighborhood either. (There are legitimate concerns about pimps, pedophiles, organized crime and STD's). That being said, there has to some way to strike a balance between the community's wants, needs and the worlds oldest profession. Men and women who decide to become escorts, and their clients, should be able to discreetly get together without fear that their encounter may result in an arrest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pickwick

>If enough people start supporting

>"Mickey Mouse" and/or third party

>candidates, then maybe, just maybe,

>both the dems and the

>republicans will stop pandering to

>their extreme constituencies and start

>paying attention to the issues

>that really matter.

 

Like what? If abortion, health care, education, tax policy and the environment aren't the issues that really matter, what are? Better access to porn? There's nothing extreme about wanting to keep prostitutes and adult bookstores out of your neighborhood, almost everybody wants that. And if fewer people had thrown their votes away on third party candidates last November, Bush wouldn't be president today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the issues that you raised are VERY important. I have a feeling that we both have similar views on most of them.

 

> There's nothing extreme about

>wanting to keep prostitutes and

>adult bookstores out of your

>neighborhood, almost everybody wants that.

 

Absolutely!

 

> And if fewer people

>had thrown their votes away

>on third party candidates last

>November, Bush wouldn't be president

>today.

 

The last time that I looked, Gore carried New Jersey -- so don't blame me. (I was VERY aware of the polling data that showed that he was going to carry the State by a substantial margin.) By voting Libertarian, I was sending a message to BOTH parties -- STOP pandering extremists and start addressing the issues in a rational way. I'm sure that many of the people who voted for third parties cadidates felt that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pickwick

>> And if fewer people

>>had thrown their votes away

>>on third party candidates last

>>November, Bush wouldn't be president

>>today.

>

>The last time that I looked,

>Gore carried New Jersey --

>so don't blame me. (I

>was VERY aware of the

>polling data that showed that

>he was going to carry

>the State by a substantial

>margin.) By voting Libertarian, I

>was sending a message to

>BOTH parties -- STOP pandering

>extremists and start addressing the

>issues in a rational way.

>I'm sure that many of

>the people who voted for

>third parties cadidates felt that

>way.

 

I don't get what you are trying to express by continually referring to "extremists." What extreme positions do the two major parties support? Restricting prostitution and pornography aren't extreme positions. It's the Libertarians who support positions that are properly defined as extreme, such as legalizing narcotics and dismantling the present federal tax system. By voting for a party like that the only message you're sending is that the two major parties can ignore your views because there's no way to get your vote without adopting positions that would alienate mainstream voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As regards getting the porn and prostitution off of the street, isn't that exactly what the internet is doing. Policable by parents protective of their minor children, not in your face if you are innocently walking your dog down the street, and reasonably available, cheap and uncensored to most adults who are interested.

 

If we can only make it clear the the "extremists" on both side of the spectrum that cyberspace is precisely the right place for smut, and arranging the details for "victimless crimes".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bitchboy

In case no one noticed, it seems Gore did win the election. I suppose those Florida votes will be debated for years, but in my opinion, he won and certainly the popular vote.

 

I can't imagine a gay man or woman supporting Republican candidates (except perhaps in the most extreme cases where the Democrat is even worse). Of course, politics and support for causes has always been a give and take issue and it always will. Bill Clinton was and is a pig, but I'll take that oinker over Dubya any day of the week. If I were judged on some of my sexual exploits, I wouldn't hold up so well either, and I assume that would go for many of the goody two shoe posters on this board.

 

As far as Guiliani goes - and perhaps I am in the minority - I despise him and what he has done to this city. He has polarized the races, given the bad cops a sense of protection no public servant should have, used city money to protect his latest squeeze. This dude is no saint. I will be glad when he gets his ass out of office. I will, at this writing, be voting for Alan Hevesi - a good man with ideals I can support. I am more than just a fucking and sucking machine, and Hevisi meets my standard of acceptability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LAST EDITED ON Mar-31-01 AT 11:35AM (EST)[p]>As far as Guiliani goes -

>and perhaps I am in

>the minority - I despise

>him and what he has

>done to this city.

>He has polarized the races,

>given the bad cops a

>sense of protection no public

>servant should have, used city

>money to protect his latest

>squeeze. This dude is

>no saint. I will

>be glad when he gets

>his ass out of office.

 

You took the words right out of my keyboard. (A friend of mine actually reprogramed his Y2K count down clock so that it now shows how many days/hours/minutes/seconds is left in Guiliani's term. I get ill everytime I walk into his office and see how much longer we'll have to put up with that man. :-()

 

>I will, at this

>writing, be voting for Alan

>Hevesi - a good man

>with ideals I can support.

> I am more than

>just a fucking and sucking

>machine, and Hevisi meets my

>standard of acceptability.

 

If I didn't live in New Jersey, I would probably vote for Hevesi too. I don't agree with him on every issue (I don't think that I'll ever find a candidate that I agree with 100 percent and, besides -- it would be boring if everyone agreed on every subject), but he seems like a nice/decent guy and I agree with most of what he has to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...