See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Michelle Malkin » Monday night TMI

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On March 17th, 2008 at 8:34 am, Wade said:

   Becoming numb to our leaders activities.

2. #2
   On March 17th, 2008 at 8:59 am, On-my-soap-box said:

   Rusty espousing the benefits of three way sex in

   5…4…3…

3. #3
   On March 17th, 2008 at 9:05 am, JohnHolliday said:

   As long as there is a segment of the American public to lap this stuff up, it will keep being front page news. After reading the first paragraph, I didn’t need to continue.

   This is one reason why I don’t read newspapers or watch TV news. It’s just wasted time.

4. #4
   On March 17th, 2008 at 9:09 am, almeehan said:

   Why are you not resting? Save yourself for the important stuff down the road! Get back to bed Michelle!

5. #5
   On March 17th, 2008 at 9:11 am, taylork said:

   Unfreaking believable. Oh wait, he’s a politician, and a Jersery politician at that, nevermind.

6. #6
   On March 17th, 2008 at 9:11 am, DaveC said:

   funny, my cyber patrol for the net wouldn’t let me see the link at the New York Post

7. #7
   On March 17th, 2008 at 9:28 am, Plastik said:

   No surprise, No reaction…

   Being a Truckstop “service” man isn’t shocking enough?

   It shows the level people will go to when they are trying to distance themselves from the truth.

   Mrs. Mcgreevey should have just joined him out there on the supeslab. She could have been his “She Pimp”!

8. #8
   On March 17th, 2008 at 9:36 am, englishqueen01 said:

   As long as there is a segment of the American public to lap this stuff up, it will keep being front page news.

   Which explains why Spitzer’s mistress (hooker, prostitute…whatever) is getting a record deal, offers for spreads in Playboy, etc.

   It’s pathetic the way people lap this stuff up. The depravity, the sexual license just disheartens me.

9. #9
   On March 17th, 2008 at 9:39 am, Barry F. said:

   Okay. That was just a little bit too much information for me. *blech*

10. #10
    On March 17th, 2008 at 9:43 am, BrianNY said:

    In 2005, I worked with a kid who was friends with some who were involved with NJ politics in the same county where McGreevey was mayor of Woodbridge.

    He used to tell me incredible stories of McGreevey and gay sex (including a story about Lady McGreevey being flown down to South Jersey by helicopter for “appearances” after Jim broke his leg on the beach with one of his gay buddies while on vacation.

    Nobody I worked with then believed those stories. It has been interesting to see them play out over the past two years.

11. #11
    On March 17th, 2008 at 10:14 am, docflash said:

    I did not have sex with that woman, uh, that guy!
    T.G.I.F.

12. #12
    On March 17th, 2008 at 10:31 am, J S Ragman said:

    You know, I always thought I would never run for office, because my past couldn’t stand the scrutiny.

    But I ain’t never done nothin’ like this crap.

13. #13
    On March 17th, 2008 at 10:46 am, Rusty said:

    Rusty espousing the benefits of three way sex in…

    RIGHT NOW!

    Well, not really. I don’t feel like it’s that big of a deal. It’s really none of our business, is it?

    The worst part about the McGreevey scandal isn’t the gayness or the “loveless marriage” or the threeways. It’s that McGreevey was able to make that the story. He drove that narrative home and cashed in on America’s love for tabloid trash.

    The real scandal is hiring an unqualified lover to be a homeland security adviser. That’s unacceptable and it got lost in the muck of coming out, divorce, and now a couple’s sexual exploits.

    Orgies, fetishes, all that stuff…they don’t bother me and shouldn’t bother you. Corruption should. McGreevey was corrupt. But that won’t make the front page of the tabloids.

14. #14
    On March 17th, 2008 at 11:05 am, taylork said:

    Orgies, fetishes, all that stuff…they don’t bother me and shouldn’t bother you.

    How about you not tell me what should bother me? I wasn’t aware that you were the word was the standard.

15. #15
    On March 17th, 2008 at 11:09 am, Rusty said:

    Why should what a couple does behind closed doors bother you? (Excluding any criminal activity of course.)

16. #16
    On March 17th, 2008 at 11:20 am, fulldroolcup said:

    Say, Rusty:

    You know all those videos over on youporn and other “free” sites? You know, the ones that show real people, including young girls, engaging in every kind of sexual act imaginable, and much of it degrading to the women?

    Ya think any of those people will ever be able to run for public office or (in some cases) get hired for responsible jobs in the public sector, when they have outed themselves as having terrible judgment, in that they think public “private sex” in which they degrade or are degraded, or just don’t give a crap about how they appear, is a No Biggie?

    Ya think?

    Someone, I forget who, said that when there are no moral standards regarding sexual behavior, there are no moral standards, period. Holding sexual urges in check is essential to civilization itself, as humans have found out over the past 5,000 years.

    But no: enlightened liberals, always thinking they can reshape human nature, think otherwise. And always to sad ends. Thus we see the result of “private sex acts” resulting in single-mom households that result in feral boys who go out and commit mayhem, disrespect women and in general don’t know how to be men.

    But, hey, it’s all a result of “private” acts. Sexuality can’t be corrupted, because it’s “natural”.

    No Biggie.

    Right, Rusty?

17. #17
    On March 17th, 2008 at 11:30 am, fulldroolcup said:

    Oh and another thing, Rusty: you’ve often signed up to the idea of the Nanny State, where government can tell us what we can eat, ingest, drive, etc —all for the Public Good.

    Many liberals think obesity, for example, needs to be fought by taxing “bad” food, and removing certain foods from menus. Ditto smoking, also so bad for you AND for “the environment”.

    Those bad behaviors, the thinking goes, raise insurance costs, burden the health care system and thus affect us all.

    Well, what about unprotected gay sex?
    It leads to HIV/AIDS and other STDS, costs bazillions to palliate, and takes 20 years off gay males’ average lifespan.

    Are you down with that kind of “private” sexual behavior, between consenting adults?

    No Biggie?

18. #18
    On March 17th, 2008 at 11:37 am, Rusty said:

    Not dealing with the results of private acts is quite different than the issue of the act itself. If a politician had an affair and abandoned the resulting offspring then, yeah, I’d want to know about it. Fathering children and/or giving someone a sexually transmitted disease is not the same thing as what a couple does behind closed doors.

    Other than that, I don’t really get what you’re trying to say. Threesomes are going to kill off American culture?

    Holding sexual urges in check is essential to civilization itself as humans have found out over the past 5,000 years.

    Huh? There have been lots of sexually permissive cultures that have collapsed. And there have been lots of sexually repressive cultures that have collapsed. Blaming the collapse of any society or civilization on sexual permissiveness is laughably inaccurate. Kind of sounds like that kooky Oklahoma politician who claimed that homosexuality is more dangerous than terrorism.

19. #19
    On March 17th, 2008 at 11:41 am, Rusty said:

    Oh and another thing, Rusty: you’ve often signed up to the idea of the Nanny State, where government can tell us what we can eat, ingest, drive, etc —all for the Public Good.

    Um, no. Other than my desire for universal health care, you won’t find a single time I’ve supported a Nanny State. I will support things that are for the public good (higher gas mileage cars for example), but I don’t think the government should have any type of say there.

    Unprotected sex is a horrible for both straights and gays who aren’t in monogamous relationships. No argument from me there either.

    But kinks, fetishes, and sexual preferences are not the same thing as sexual irresponsibility.

20. #20
    On March 17th, 2008 at 11:46 am, amigoneus said:

    Other than my desire for universal health care, you won’t find a single time I’ve supported a Nanny State

    The problem is Rusty, that once the government is taking care of our healthcare, they implicitly have the right to tell us what we can and can’t put in our bodies, how much we should exercise, what our weight should be, etc. Therefore, you obviously do support a Nanny state.

21. #21
    On March 17th, 2008 at 11:51 am, Rusty said:

    The problem is Rusty, that once the government is taking care of our healthcare, they implicitly have the right to tell us what we can and can’t put in our bodies, how much we should exercise, what our weight should be, etc.

    I don’t think you understand how universal health care would work in this country.

    This is getting off-topic. Let us all agree: McGreevey is a jerk. Specifically for being corrupt.

22. #22
    On March 17th, 2008 at 12:15 pm, amigoneus said:

    Well, there’s a lot of things I don’t understand that you say Rusty. Starting with
    

    I don’t think you understand how universal health care would work in this country.

    Ummm, last I checked Universal meant throughout the universe. Our healthcare would be countrywide. Minor point, maybe, but before you pop out with smartass comments trying to make me look stupid, I would check what you’re writing.

    And, we may be off-topic, but I would love for you to explain exactly how government-run healthcare in this country would work, since you seem to think you’re an expert.

23. #23
    On March 17th, 2008 at 12:18 pm, taylork said:

    Why should what a couple does behind closed doors bother you? (Excluding any criminal activity of course.)

    Not the point. What my point is, is that you are not the arbiter of what offends people and what doesn’t. If an orgy offends someone so be it, you don’t get the right to decide what offends someone or not. You might think that them taking offense over such things is stupid, but you can’t tell them they aren’t allowed to be offended.

24. #24
    On March 17th, 2008 at 12:29 pm, amigoneus said:

    About post #22 - not wanting to threadjack, I just get really tired of Rusty coming in and trying to talk big through his ignorance.

    On McGreevey - way way TMI. I know newspapers are all about making money, but really, why do they think we all want to hear about all the sordid details??

25. #25
    On March 17th, 2008 at 12:46 pm, taylork said:

    …and of course there’s no mention that he or Spitzer, who was briefly mentioned in the story, are democrats.

26. #26
    On March 17th, 2008 at 12:47 pm, taylork said:

    This is getting off-topic. Let us all agree: McGreevey is a jerk. Specifically for being corrupt.

    SO being a philandering man-whore isn’t enough to make one a jerk?

27. #27
    On March 17th, 2008 at 12:51 pm, Rusty said:

    You might think that them taking offense over such things is stupid, but you can’t tell them they aren’t allowed to be offended.

    I said they shouldn’t be offended. Not that they’re not allowed to be offended.

    Ummm, last I checked Universal meant throughout the universe. Our healthcare would be countrywide. Minor point, maybe, but before you pop out with smartass comments trying to make me look stupid, I would check what you’re writing.

    Universal health care: “health care coverage which is extended to all citizens, and sometimes permanent residents, of a governmental region.”

    The “universal” refers to the people in the region universally having it. Not the entire universe. Which again proves to me that you don’t understand how universal health care would work.

    The current proposals here all take special care to not allow doctors to decide what can and can not be allowed.

    they implicitly have the right to tell us what we can and can’t put in our bodies, how much we should exercise, what our weight should be, etc.

    …couldn’t be further from the truth. You would, assuming you already have insurance, get to keep the same doctor and same insurance plan. No nanny state.

    Medical professionals wouldn’t suddenly become government contractors. That would eliminate the need for insurance and providers aren’t going to let that happen.

28. #28
    On March 17th, 2008 at 12:55 pm, Rusty said:

    SO being a philandering man-whore isn’t enough to make one a jerk?

    Having a threesome doesn’t count as philandering.

    And adultery can make one a jerk but I don’t see how it affects one’s office holding abilities (it’s not the adultery, it’s the hypocrisy…ie Senators Craig and Vitter and Governor Spitzer).

    And in McGreevey’s case it’s that he hired someone unqualified to a sensitive position (the jokes write themselves!). Whether it’s an affair or a personal favor or what have you, that’s worse than cheating. It means you’re unsuited for your job.

29. #29
    On March 17th, 2008 at 1:57 pm, amigoneus said:

    I will admit that in this case, I was wrong about the use of the word universal. I was using the literal meaning of the word. Doesn’t mean I don’t know that government is always the problem. I’ve been to the DMV enough to know that government + service always = sucks.

    The current proposals where, Rusty?

    The current proposals here all take special care to not allow doctors to decide what can and can not be allowed.

    - Guide to Universal Health Care.

    So if a doctor doesn’t believe in abortion, they wouldn’t have the choice not to offer it? That doesn’t seem right.

    “Also, universal healthcare takes power out of the private business realm and places it in the public government realm.”

    You’re right that they wouldn’t become government contractors. They would literally work for the government.

    Question - why on Earth would my job offer me medical benefits that are costing them a lot of money a year when they can simply stop offering coverage since the government would pick it up?

30. #30
    On March 17th, 2008 at 3:41 pm, Vince said:

    Yes! By all means take special care to see that doctors are not allowed to decide what’s best for the patient! The government is the superior arbiter of what should be allowed or not allowed in health care.

31. #31
    On March 17th, 2008 at 7:51 pm, Kevin K. said:

    I agree with almeehan (#4). Michelle, we want you healthy–save your strength for important things (family and getting better and Constitutional issues).

32. #32
    On March 17th, 2008 at 9:47 pm, DBNinKY said:

    “…from the McGreevey divorce trial.”

    Deceiving others about one’s sexual preferences or porclivities indicates a personality that is comfortable with lying and untrustworthy for office.

    In the same vein of Perot in 1992: If he/she deceives us about what goes on behind the bedroom door, then how can trust him/her behind the office door!

33. #33
    On March 18th, 2008 at 10:33 am, DBNinKY said:

    Yikes! I should never comment when I’m tired and punchy from a lack of sleep.

    1.) porclivities = proclivities
    2.) can trust = can “we” trust