Former Colorado Legislator Now In Porn Business With Daughter: "I Feel No Shame"

Rocky Mountain News ^ | 8/7/04 | John aguilar

[beezdotcom]

Marriage confers things like citizenship upon a person in this country. There are a lot of reasons for government to issue marriage licenses.

Actually, this is a strike AGAINST marriage. There are better ways to confer citizenship on people. Do you also agree that the child of every illegal that pops out as soon as they sneak across the border should ALSO have citizenship immediately conferred on them? I think in both cases, it should at least be conditional for a time.

[Moleman]

And thanks to the Internet and DVD, its more accessible to a mainstream audience than ever before in history.

Call me old fashioned but I still like to put on a wig and a rain coat and head out to the $0.25 peep shows :-)

[cyborg]

I do not believe the children of illegals should be granted automatic citizenship.

[Protagoras]

Nice try, you can run but you can't hide from your Republican Party.
That is not a personal attack. It addresses an attempt to turn misbehaving Republicans into libertarians.
You attacked me personally.
You should retract your slanderous and despicable attack.
The again, maybe you can blame your faults on someone else as you did before.

[cyborg]

I'm not taking back a word I said.

[BaBaStooey]

[monday]

"With him we have the additional twist that he is, if not an actual child molester, a child-porn enthusiast."
"When he was arrested he knew that he could never be elected as a Republican ever again."

He was investigated, BUT NO CHARGES WERE FILED. The reason he was investigated was because he was a Republican politician and his adopted daughter was a porn star. His ADOPTED DAUGHTER was a porn star, NOT he and his wife. This was a political hit job. If you were in his position, the exact same thing could have happened to you.

Don't tell me you could never be in his position. No one wants their children to be porn stars when they grow up, but some are, and there isn't a thing you can do about it once they are adults.

Whats surprising to me is that he isn't more angry at his daughter. I guess if she is offering the only job he can get because the government has dragged his name through the mud, he has to swallow his pride and make the best of the situation.

[Protagoras]

I'm not taking back a word I said.

Neither is Scharwz.

[monday]

"and b)confess that he watches Jewel's tapes regularly...."

eeeuuuwwwww... you would watch your daughters tapes if you were in his position? Thats just nasty..adopted or not.

[beezdotcom]

Strictly speaking, Western Civilization doesn't have Judeo-Christian roots; they're Greek. It is, however, now heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian ethics. One could argue that the tolerant nature of the West helped to propel the Gospel out of the Mid-east and into the rest of the world. It has never stopped being tolerant of outside ideas.

Yes, yes, I was taking a verbal shortcut. And tolerance of Judeo-Christian ethics has arguably a net positive to Western Civ., because properly implemented (NOT as in the Inquisition, etc.) they are fairly compatible. And we both worry whether or not this is likely to hold true for every religion.

By allowing one religion to insert its beliefs into the law, we've opened the door for other religions to do the same. I don't want Jainists writing laws forbidding the eating of meat, or Muslims writing laws requiring women to wear burqas and thus I can't expect to see Christians writing laws according to our sense of morality.

Of course, I don't want to live under Sharia law, either. But I don't quite agree with your wording. I think a Christian is specifically under an obligation to at least respect the Christian sense of morality in writing laws. In some cases, that may indeed translate to taking an amoral approach to the law, because it best allows the Christian to practice his morality. However, amorality is a slippery slope, too.

[beezdotcom]

eeeuuuwwwww... you would watch your daughters tapes if you were in his position? Thats just nasty..adopted or not.

Of course I wouldn't. My whole point is that I wouldn't *BE* in his position. I have serious doubts about a man who will take a job to help peddle his daughter's sexual exploits to the public. Hence, I am suspicious of his claims to never view her work.

[beezdotcom]

Oh, you two. Is moral hypocrisy present in the Republican Party? Sure. Are they the party you immediately think of joining when you say, "I want lower taxes and legal vices"? Doubtful.

[SoothingDave]

Nobody's said "May the Schwarz be with you"?

SD

[cyborg]

That was my original point.

[Protagoras]

The party is irrelevant. Always has been.
The point is, when you push your bad apples off onto another group, you expose yourself to the same nonsense.
It's the same thing as putting the picture of the whacko blue guy up everytime some childish poster wants to discredit libertarians.
So it comes full circle, but some people just don't get it.
And then they accuse other freepers of embracing pornography.
Go figure.

[Protagoras]

That was my original point.

No it wasn't.

It was to find a way to soil a different group with your own trash.

Stick to ideas and you will do better.

And stop accusing people you don't know of moral failings when you expose yourself with your own slander.

[cyborg]

Okay whatever.

[beezdotcom]

The party is irrelevant. Always has been. The point is, when you push your bad apples off onto another group, you expose yourself to the same nonsense.

But I couldn't disagree more. A party is as relative as its platform. I'm not even sure I know exactly what you meant there, so I should probably wait for clarification before ranting.

One man's bad apple is another man's pie filling. You're accusing Republicans of trying to push a "bad apple" out...what makes him a bad apple to Republicans? (Well, aside from the child porn charges that were later dropped - but we've barely been talking about those.)

Would he be considered a bad apple to Libertarians? To libertarians?

[Protagoras]

Every party has it's rotten apples.
Parties exist to elect people.
Philosophies describe ideas.
If you disagree with someone's ideas, debate the ideas.
If you would like to ask a question about a philosophy, fire away. But try to avoid personal attacks, it didn't work too well for the other poster. I assume you are an honest poster so you can take that as a general comment not aimed at you specifically.

[dukeman]

Yeah, can you believe it took 113 replies to get that in?