Vitter used taxpayer money for whores and diaper fetishes

He is a senator and he gets paid by our tax dollars. He used money to pay for the whores and diapers ergo he used my money on personal pleasure.

Just called his office again and demanded he resign!

:evilgrin:

once a person has been paid, the money is THEIRS.
NOBODY has ANY right to say that ANY public servant is spending anyone's money but their own.

does YOUR employer have a right to say how YOU spend YOUR paycheck?

approach then any boss has the right to determine how an employee spends their money. It really doesn't fly.

We can, through political pressure and perhaps a court of law, require him to return some of this money in the form of fines. Prostitution is illegal--he used the money for an illegal activity. I've known other politicians who have lost political office because of illegal activities.

he can be charged for the illegal activity, but he doesn't have to re-imburse his employer for illicitly spent wages- nobody does.

I was commenting on the fact that any politician who engages in illegal activity often forfeits his job and has to pay large fines. Anything wrong with that? Or do you think that politicians are above the law, and any action they do should never have political or financial consequences?

your subject line said that we have the right to say how he spends his wages.

we don't.

and yes, ALL people should be subject to equal treatment when they break the law, whether it be in terms of fines or jailtime- whatever the law dictates.

in that if he spends his money on something illegal, we have the right to arrest him and boot him out of office. If I spent my wages in buying and/or using illegal drugs, you're darned tooting I'd be fired in a heartbeat. There is a strict no drugs policy at my place of employment. So my employer has, in fact, put a restriction on how I spend my money.

its on your consumption of drugs - unless you're telling me that if you got high on drugs that were a gift the response would be different, or that you would be fired if you loaned a friend of yours money and he spent it on drugs.

because of the no-drug policy at work, I wouldn't buy drugs unless I wanted to get fired (plus I don't do drugs anyway). So the restriction is there-maybe not as clear cut as you make it--but if I wished to keep my job, I don't spend money on drugs.

And here's another example--a man has a political patronage job. In order to maintain the job, he is expected to "donate" a certain percentage of his paycheck to the party who got him the job. If he doesn't, he doesn't have the job. If he donated to the opposition party, he'd also be out of a job. Another even more clear-cut example of how an employer can dictate how you spend your money.

restriction under the Hatch act, at least with respect to federal political patronage jobs, as well as to state jobs where any portion of the funding comes from the Federal government. (and as a Dem who at one time was hired by, and worked for, Rep in a state job I was never asked for a contribution and was never even asked to volunteer non-financially to his contribution. Even his cohorts (who I also worked with and for on occasion) who were less likely to hire outside of the party didn't dare expect a donation from me or from the folks who worked directly for them).

As for the first, from anything you have said it is not a restriction on spending - I certainly don't blame you for not wanting to make it a habit of buying things you can't use, but that's your hangup - not something imposed by your boss. Your basic premise is that Vitter used taxpayer money so we have some right to demand it back. So far as I know, he didn't use taxpayer money. Once he is paid, it is his money and as taxpayer - employers we have no right to dictate how he spends it. There are potentially criminal remedies, and those remedies might include fines, but those same remedies would apply to anyone - they don't apply to him because it was our money that paid his salary.

you can buy all the drugs you want.

on whatever repugs find repugnant at the time.


The biblican quote about the mote and the beam come to mind here.

nt

so taxpayers wouldn't realize what cheats they actually are and how greedily they suck at the gov't tit.

nt

so i would say that he was on his own time.

since it would be drinking on the job.

i definitely don't consider my representatives to be 'on the clock' 24/7...EVERYONE deserves a private life.

LOST HIS JOB.

and putting on the taxpayer tab is a little different than paying for it out of your own pocket, too.

Maybe we should look into the rules and regulations regarding those who take an 'oath of office' in the U.S. Senate, and what bylaws of ethical conduct pertain to his salary as an elected official. :)

since it would be drinking on the job.

:hi:

:shrug:

i don't need to look up the rules of the senate, because i know that they aren't considered to be "on the clock" 24/7- no reasonable person would/could ever infer something like that. :hi:

as "business lunches".

Taxpayers weren't too happy about paying for lap dances
for the mayor.

demands I spend on him directly. What a nice sort of fellow.... bwahahahahahah.....

would so easily dismiss you calling whores from your place of business.
Vitter was hiring DC madam whores while he was in the House on rollcall votes.

But Vitter's Employer sure as hell does.

Buy a pizza for the IDF, no prob.

Buy a box of baby formula for a Pal, see you in Gitmo jack.

i have no idea what you are referring to.

tell me where I can or can not spend my money, but Vitter's employer has no problem telling me where I can or cannot spend my money.

As a matter of fact, they can confiscate any money I have and any property involved, such as homes and cars, in the commission of a felony such as the one Vitter admitted to.

Since assholes such as Vitter wrote these laws and profit personally from them, I have no problem charging them for using tax payer supplied monies, as some of that income was derived from the confiscation of personal property from those involved in the very same victim-less crimes he has committed.

And then the lame things will take care of themselves.

If we don't distract from Vitter's hypocrisy by pushing something grossly obtuse, we might get something from it.

However, making assignations with whores while voting might indicate a lack of attention to the actual job.

so he WAS planning his diaper escapades on OUR dime. He definitely should resign!

phone records. :dunce: :dunce: :dunce:

:bounce:

taxpayer money on pornography?

Gezundheit.

lets see...i watched some of fucker, tweety & olbermann

someone said we need to find out where his whoring money came from--and determine that it was not paid for by a LOBBYIST!