I know some won't like this post, but oh well ... sometimes the facts are left behind in a rush to execute someone for admitted mistakes.
1. MikeinAR - on one hand you bash Limbaugh for his abuse of pills --- which he came clean on and admitted his use of on his radio program. I know he did, because I was a listener back then and heard it. On the other hand you defend Letterman for his coming clean and suggest Clinton should have done the same.
Mike, if it works for one, it should work for everyone. You show your bias when you continually bash conservatives for their admitted mistakes, but cover up for liberals admitted mistakes.
It's called being hypocritical...
2. Let's get things straight here ... Letterman was not "outed" by any of the ladies he had sexual relations with. He was illegally blackmailed by a male co-worker.
Letterman was not married during the time... it was NOT an affair on his part. So why the demand that he show remorse for consentual acts he did as a single adult.
Some people amaze me with their blind ignorance and rush to judgement.
The same ones who were upset with BHO's blind and ignorant rush to judgement against the white police officer, are themselves now making the same blind and ignorant rush to judgement against Letterman.
Look, you all may disagree with his politics; you may think he's crass and a jerk ... but all he did was as a single man, he had relations with several co-workers.
It may be biblically and morally wrong but he did nothing most men in the workplace don't do themselves.
For the record, I don't like Letterman, I think he's incredibly disrespectful to conservatives -- especially to President Bush.
Quote:
'I know what you are saying,' he said. 'I'll be darned, Dave had sex!'
Really? People are angry about this quote? It's called self-depreciating humor. Again, no remorse is needed - not married, no laws broken ...
Rush Limbaugh said about the same thing today talking about power relationships with staff and whats beyond the limits of 'ok' even in the professional world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by n david
I know some won't like this post, but oh well ... sometimes the facts are left behind in a rush to execute someone for admitted mistakes.
1. MikeinAR - on one hand you bash Limbaugh for his abuse of pills --- which he came clean on and admitted his use of on his radio program. I know he did, because I was a listener back then and heard it. On the other hand you defend Letterman for his coming clean and suggest Clinton should have done the same.
Mike, if it works for one, it should work for everyone. You show your bias when you continually bash conservatives for their admitted mistakes, but cover up for liberals admitted mistakes.
I don't think anyone's covering up anything Letterman did. He admitted to it on National TV.
I mentioned Limbaugh only because, according to Apocrypha's post, he was criticizing Letterman. That seems hypocritical coming from a guy who was arrested on criminal drug fraud charges.
__________________
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity. Augustine
And the joke, btw, was FUNNY. He's a big nerd, and so he was saying self-deprecatingly, "Yes, even I had sex." And went so far as to say it would be the women who would be embarrassed by having the general public know they had sex with David Letterman.
What you may have overlooked, in the midst of it all, is that Letterman's "joke" is actually, if you are really paying attention, appealing to the base carnality of his viewers and diverting their attention away from himself and his actions.
Let's look at that again: 'I know what you are saying,' he said. 'I'll be darned, Dave had sex!'
What that makes room for is to allow the audience to breath a sigh of relief and hold up the banner of - "Of course it's okay to have sex! Of course we can do whatever we want with our lives and our bodies - with whoever and whenever!!! It's a free country! Don't tell me what I can do with my body and my life! You go, David Letterman!!! Well, said!!!!"
2. Let's get things straight here ... Letterman was not "outed" by any of the ladies he had sexual relations with. He was illegally blackmailed by a male co-worker.
Letterman was not married during the time... it was NOT an affair on his part. So why the demand that he show remorse for consentual acts he did as a single adult.
Some people amaze me with their blind ignorance and rush to judgement.
The same ones who were upset with BHO's blind and ignorant rush to judgement against the white police officer, are themselves now making the same blind and ignorant rush to judgement against Letterman.
Look, you all may disagree with his politics; you may think he's crass and a jerk ... but all he did was as a single man, he had relations with several co-workers.
It may be biblically and morally wrong but he did nothing most men in the workplace don't do themselves.
Really? People are angry about this quote? It's called self-depreciating humor. Again, no remorse is needed - not married, no laws broken ...
Sorry to interrupt your hangin' ...
I'm wondering - If Letterman did nothing that most men don't do in the workplace and he wasn't married, what did Halderman have on him worthy of blackmail?
I'm not sure we have all of the facts. Halderman's lawyer is saying - "This story is far more complicated than what you heard this afternoon," Shargel said outside court, but he would not elaborate.
I'm wondering - If Letterman did nothing that most men don't do in the workplace and he wasn't married, what did Halderman have on him worthy of blackmail?
I'm not sure we have all of the facts. Halderman's lawyer is saying - "This story is far more complicated than what you heard this afternoon," Shargel said outside court, but he would not elaborate.
Halderman dated one of the girls, found out about the affair, took items of hers that seem to corroborate the affair, and without her consent attempted to blackmail Letterman with the info. Letterman has sinned for having the affair, but I fear there is more than one rat in this scenario. I also think that the question as to who in this scenario set out to victimize and manipulate people still remains to be seen.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
To have found himself addicted to painkillers was bad. To have found himself suffering for years from chronic and untreatable physical pain may have been worse.
The thing that you criticize Rush for is understandable - however it also involves years of human suffering and pain. You left that part out.
Letterman was just horny.
There's a big difference in the levels of culpability between the "sins" of these two men.
Halderman dated one of the girls, found out about the affair, took items of hers that seem to corroborate the affair, and without her consent attempted to blackmail Letterman with the info. Letterman has sinned for having the affair, but I fear there is more than one rat in this scenario. I also think that the question as to who in this scenario set out to victimize and manipulate people still remains to be seen.
Right. I understand that Halderman had an envelope with e-mails and photos to show Letterman that he meant business. It certainly appears to be a story unfolding.
I am also wondering why Halderman being a 7-time Emmy winner, TV producer and having a journalism career spanning three decades would jeopardize his reputation and future career on a well-known man like Letterman? I don't know the extent of Halderman's financial troubles and if that, in fact, is the main reason for the blackmail. He still had to have some pretty heavy goods on him, to ask that much money.
But then you have to look at the strategic move of Letterman's attorney writing a check that was certain to bounce.
Last edited by Pressing-On; 10-03-2009 at 05:07 PM.
Right. I understand that Halderman had an envelope with e-mails and photos to show Letterman that he meant business. It certainly appears to be a story unfolding.
I am also wondering why Halderman being a 7-time Emmy winner, TV producer and having a journalism career spanning three decades would jeopardize his reputation and future career on a well-known man like Letterman? I don't know the extent of Halderman's financial troubles and if that, in fact, is the main reason for the blackmail. He still had to have some pretty heavy goods on him, to ask that much money.
But then you have to look at the strategic move of Letterman's attorney writing a check that was certain to bounce.
My understanding was that the check was an intentional bogus check, likely for the purpose of proving the extortion case. I believe that at the time the check was given, law enforcement was already involved.
I too wondered why a relatively successful man would try to do this, but I guess he just saw the chance at a big payday and took it.
As to the reason he thought Letterman would be willing to pay such big money just to cover a simple affair:
a) Apparently Letterman wasn't.
b) It may be conceivable that someone of Letterman's stature would pay significant money to cover even a simple affair...especially if there are compromising pictures, correspondence, voice mail etc,
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
Location: just north of the celtics red sox and patriots go baby!
Posts: 730
Re: How Low Can Letterman go?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tstew
My understanding was that the check was an intentional bogus check, likely for the purpose of proving the extortion case. I believe that at the time the check was given, law enforcement was already involved.
I too wondered why a relatively successful man would try to do this, but I guess he just saw the chance at a big payday and took it.
As to the reason he thought Letterman would be willing to pay such big money just to cover a simple affair:
a) Apparently Letterman wasn't.
b) It may be conceivable that someone of Letterman's stature would pay significant money to cover even a simple affair...especially if there are compromising pictures, correspondence, voice mail etc,
the check was bogus, although im sure he could write one of that magnitude he has made hundreds of millions im sure .apparently its a non issue with his wife, since she used to work for him and had to know what was going on .so no reason to pay on a personal level. career ? who knows. if roman polanski can get a 100 signatures on a petition from entertainment types anything is possible.if you read that grand jury testimony youll never be shocked again. disgusting !
Linear Mode
