Vitter and diapers. True or False?

[Truthiness Inspector]

Read this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2915823#2916028

[Bluebear]

1. How would we have forensic proof? What kind of proof are you seeking?

[K8-EEE]

3. He's looking for a blue dress (with a brown stain)

I think the fact that he's NOT DENYING IT and in fact his office has "no comment" on dipey questions is good enough proof....natch I don't have the actual diapers NOR DO I WANT THEM...

[Truthiness Inspector]

10. That's good enough proof?

Whoa. If you were accused of something this barfsome, would you want to be on record even dignifying the allegation?

[K8-EEE]

16. It would help if he would deny it....

Which he's not.....still, yes, for someone who admitted to going to whores while running on "superior moral values," he should be out there saying EXACTLY WHAT HE DID, or I can believe the worst (and I will!)

[Truthiness Inspector]

20. He's a hypocrite no doubt

that doesn't mean the diaper thing is true. Where is your proof that he wears diapers? Got any proof at all besides the fact the he isn't denying wearing diapers, screwing farm animals, or humping his own relatives?

It seems to me your standard of "proof" is lack of denial of an allegation that has absolutely no basis, at least at this time.

[Truthiness Inspector]

4. Even a credible statement would be a good start.

What would you require if someone said "Bluebear likes to doo-doo his diapers"?

[Maddy McCall]

5. I would say...

Riiiiight.

[Bluebear]

6. ...

:spray:

[Bluebear]

8. I dunno, but rehabilitating Vitter is the last thing on my mind.

For all his perversion whilst trying to take rights away from gay people etc., let him simmer in his own kaka until HE can prove otherwise!

[uppityperson]

61. Better than just dumping it on the floor

[K8-EEE]

2. I think all freeper types pay for "diaper service"

I've noticed a lot of them call their wives "mommy" Reagan-style. Also, they think it's not as weird as Clinton's run of the mill blowjob. They think it's not weird CUZ THEY ALL DO IT. THAT'S MY PROOF!

[Swamp Rat]

7. I'll take the word of a prostitute any day over a republican.

:)

[Truthiness Inspector]

21. Yeah

but the prostitute herself said he wasn't into anything unusual, as cited in the link in my OP.

But great pics! :o

[Swamp Rat]

24. Oh, but there was more than one prostitute.

Many more. ;)

There is a house in New Orleans...

... on Canal St. :D

:rofl:

[Truthiness Inspector]

27. Perhaps

but none of them have said he parties in Pampers.

[Swamp Rat]

28. Right. They put Luvs on him.

goo goo! :D

[yardwork]

59. I LOVE that one!

Jeff reflected in rose-colored glasses. LOL!

[pitohui]

73. the prostitute said it in such a way that you knew she was passive aggressing him

i can't believe how many DU people took the "killing him kindly" story as being the whore supported vitter

hello? I"M supposed to be the high functioning autistic and even i can recognize this as a litigation proof way to stab a customer she hates

he must have tipped VERY poorly at her whorehouse!

[burythehatchet]

66. truer words have never been spoken

[Skittles]

78. yes

and I trust street whores over corporate whores ANY f***ing day

[NaturalHigh]

9. I honestly have no idea...

but if it's true, it creeps me out.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. How about "Don't Give A Shit"?

[Truthiness Inspector]

12. There are votes for having proof. Where is that proof? n/t

[flyarm]

13. i don't care..it has made me laugh alot!!..and the pics here have been great!!

sometime you just need to laugh..and all the photos done at du have made me laugh my ass off!!

thank you!

fly

[ashling]

14. Maybe he was planning for a career move

resign from Congress in disgrace - become an astronaut

[flyarm]

15. i just want to know..is there a dirty dipers rehab???????? eom

[Zookeeper]

17. It's TRUE! And my reason is always good enough...

when the Rethugs use it: "Someone knows a guy who says he knows it's true!"

"Some people say" that Vitter has a diaper fetish. Who am I to argue? :evilgrin:

[The_Casual_Observer]

18. Chances are pretty good that it's even worse than diapers.

Where there's smoke there's fire. That guy didn't need to pay to have normal sex, he has a wife & kids, he was looking for some strange shit.

[Truthiness Inspector]

22. Did you even read the link I provided?

The prostitute expressly said he wasn't into anything unusual.

But go ahead, let your mind wander...into your own fantasies.

[The_Casual_Observer]

23. It's a prostitute with a heart of gold!

Just like pretty woman!

We must be watching the the Oxygen channel on a Saturday afternoon.

[Truthiness Inspector]

25. Huh? You either have proof or you don't. n/t

[The_Casual_Observer]

26. Go ahead, side with the freep. We'll check back in a few days.

Looking on the bright side of a sex scandal isn't typically a safe bet.

[Truthiness Inspector]

29. Nice try

I'm not "siding with the freep." Some people, you included, are stating as fact something which has no basis in fact at this time. I have a problem with that. You do not.

Now, tell me why integrity matters?

[The_Casual_Observer]

30. Did he buy sex?

Now the only question is, what kind? Was it proper or improper? Sounds like you would argue for the proper kind, the kind with integrity.

[Truthiness Inspector]

33. That is a dodge, and you know it.

Diapers, true or false?

Buying sex, already established. Not in dispute here.

[Richard Steele]

45. You care a LOT about defending this shitbag. Already established. Not in dispute here. nm

[Crunchy Frog]

31. I had the impression that she meant "not unusual for a Republican"

and that diapers are actually fairly run of the mill in those circles.

Anyway, it works for me.:D

[Bluebear]

32. So if one believes the Vitter diaper scenario, it's one's "own fantasies"?

:silly:

[Truthiness Inspector]

34. Yes.

Now prove to me you don't have fantasies involving diaper fetishes.

[Bluebear]

35. Totally ridiculous poll, sorry. Why are you so exercised over whether he is a big baby?

Is it a "gotcha" thread where you will reveal us all to be "just as hypocritical as the freepers" for not caring about whether the man paid to poop his depends?

[Truthiness Inspector]

37. I'm not exercised at all

I just don't like bogus info being passed along as "true." I'd like to think the majority of us here feel the same way. Credibility matters.

Not sure what you mean about any intent on my part to reveal you; you've done that all by yourself.

[Bluebear]

38. Fine, you keep campaigning for Vitter, madame, & insulting the members here.

Thanks for the pleasantry.

[Truthiness Inspector]

40. Ha ha!

Ok. :crazy:

Have a lovely night.

[uppityperson]

62. He's excited, worked up, aroused, disturbed, eager, ...

Here is a list from thesaurus.com for "excited":
aflame, agitated, animated, annoyed, aroused, awakened, beside oneself*, charged, delighted, discomposed, disconcerted, disturbed, eager, enthusiastic, feverish, fired up*, frantic, high*, hopped up, horny, hot*, hyper, hysterical, inflamed, inspired, juiced up*, jumpy*, keyed up*, moved, nervous, on edge*, on fire*, overwrought, passionate, piqued, provoked, roused, ruffled, steamed up*, stimulated, stirred, thrilled, tumultuous, upset, weird, wild, worked up

[marions ghost]

43. Truthiness Inspector,

while I understand why you'd question this allegation, I don't think it's a strong argument to cite the prostitute as a reliable source. Prostitutes are known for paid discretion, not truthiness.

[alcibiades_mystery]

57. You have a strange standard for citation

The prostitute who goes on record is untrustworthy for being a prostitute, yet the rumor, which is transmitted third party through a JOHN is absolutely dependable (haha) because...? BECAUSE WE WANT IT TO BE. That's all.

[marions ghost]

63. Uh OK

sure, there are probably just as many honest prostitutes as there are honest politicians. They're both low on my scale of reliable witnesses, that's all.

Actually does it matter about the diaper tidbit being true or not? It's just a salacious detail. There is MORE than enough evidence that the twisted Vitter and his ilk have caused serious damage in our society, while suckering people into believing they are all about 'family values.' He is mentally unfit to legislate based on this deception of others and the degree of self-deception. If you want legislators of higher caliber, you have to root out the rabid skunks and mentally unstable. We'd probably agree on that.

It's possible to have an objective interest in the nature and trajectory of unsubstantiated information. Sure people will rush to judge their enemies. Human nature. But I also understand why people are concerned with substantiation--it's so hard to pin down 'truth' in anything. Seeking truth is a job that is ever more important now, and I do it myself when I have enough time for research. On the other hand I have seen rumors that have "legs" turn out to be true and point to other perhaps more significant trangressions.

So we don't know. The Madam's assertions don't tell us anything, is all I'm sayin. We don't know shit about the diaper detail, really.

It's all speculation.

But you don't want to suppress speculation, especially in an UNfree society.

[alcibiades_mystery]

64. I have no interest in suppressing speculation

[marions ghost]

67. the "you" is collective...

not intended to be personal.

The general point is that the urge to demand hard proof in a situation such as this is unrealistic, and also reflects bias. Of course the madam will likely cover for her client, esp considering the nature of the business. We'd have to go a lot further towards legitimizing prostitution before she would be given too much credibility.

[alcibiades_mystery]

68. Ah, yes...

"...the urge to demand hard proof in a situation such as this is unrealistic, and also reflects bias."

This is truly the world turned upside down. Asking somebody to back up their claims with evidence is biased? Noting that until such backing is forthcoming, those claims are completely unsubstantiated? That's biased too, I suppose.

I think everybody understands that the Madam has an abiding interest in maintaining client confidentialities (although her business is shut down). That's obvious. So we take that witness' testimony with that perspective into consideration. That's one matter. On that, we are in agreement. But then there's the other matter, that goes like this: Where did the diaper claim come from? Does it have any basis in fact? Why are people spreading it if it doesn't? Why do people believe it if it doesn't? Is it appropriate to note that it is unsubstantiated when it is mentioned?

For my part, this is an interesting study in the way people "believe what they want to believe." For those many who say "who cares if it's true...it has political efficacy," that's fine, I suppose. These people suggest that turn around is fair play, and that "they" do it to "us" all the time. Fine again. We're in a rhetorical field of struggle. Cool with me. But perhaps some of us see our role in that struggle as arguing for particular modes of evidence for making claims. Maybe we feel like everything is lost if such ways of thinking fall by the wayside in favor of general free-for-all argumentation. Or maybe we're just amused that so many people are willing to believe something just because they really really want to.

So perhaps we agree on that, too. Perhaps the "bias" in asking for substantiation is T%HAT bias: the bias of that position that values particular sorts of evidence, that supposes particular factual claims require specific forms of evidence. If that's the bias you're suggesting, then I guess I'm guilty.

[marions ghost]

70. well the old world may be turned upside down...

maybe will never look the same again. I'm not sure yet. And maybe I am tangled up in knots about this question of substantiation. OK, here goes nothing...just reject it if it doesn't make any sense to you. It's all mental meanderings, not meaning to offend.

Seems to me we used to think in terms of right vs wrong, truth vs.lies, "rules", objective standards, ethics. The collective belief was that reason and logic usually prevail. But although there are still islands of objectivity we're more like bumper boats in a sea of relativity now. Maybe that's what you are talking about --how this state of flux feels so uncomfortable. But can we ever really have that kind of solidity again? Is it even a goal?

It seems like a remnant of a "nicer" world --the world Before Bush--to say that (non-legal) claims must be substantiated. Seems to me that when you have a society based on exploitation of others, where nobody abides by rules or plays fair, where it's all about controlling spin, then the whole game changes. You learn that your societal enemies really ARE out to sabotage everything you care about and perhaps even threaten your physical well-being. But you have few means to MAKE them play by rules. So if you are abused by NeoCon narcissists you might not accord them the same objectivity you give other people. It's natural to believe the worst of your enemy. Diaper-wearing fits right in with the level of maturity the Neocons typically exhibit, tho diaper-wearing is likely impossible to prove one way or the other. ('Did he or didn't he? Only his hooker knows for sure'). But it works as a free-floating image, especially one that brings our mortal enemy down to size, underscores his flawed character. So I'm getting at a psychological justification for it. Yes, to a certain extent we are reduced to being knitters at the guillotines. Off with his head. (Or bobbit him, or whatever. In photoshop of course).

So when you say we need to substantiate the diaper claim against him --indicates a protection of this guy's image that doesn't seem warranted. You appear to be talking about a legalistic burden of proof (correct me if I'm wrong) that isn't applicable to this situation. It seems unrealistic. I'm not sure I understand why you say "everything is lost" if evidence is not produced. I guess we'd like to see Fox or CNN or Inside Edition held to a high burden of proof, but that would fundamentally alter the way they operate. Hard proof doesn't seem to matter in the court of public opinion. A court of law would be different.

Sorry if my explanation of where I'm coming from seems simplistic. I'm more of an observer than a debater. :)cheers

[alcibiades_mystery]

71. I'm not talking about a legal burden of proof

I'm talking about ethical argumentation. And ethics, to be ethics, applies whether some external object is accomplished or not. Ethics just means (etymologically) a way of being (a self), a way of comporting oneself. Now, you imply that ethics are out the window, because "our enemies" have none. Again, I get the impulse. But I think it is a piss poor way of comporting oneself. And I can't stomach it.

My colleagues, by the way, would die laughing to think that I was the one defending "objective truth" against some version of sophistry. Far from it. I defend the cultivation of an argumentative DISCIPLINE against a free-for-all. Truth (as objective) may have served the role of establishing such discipline in the past (for a short time, to be sure). It's probably not the best way of cultivating it. But there are others. For me, it's pretty simple: If you say X, you have to show me why. Why X? I don't even really care whether it's "true" or not. Just give me a good WHY. This story is distasteful, and indicates a broader problem, because so many people refuse to even come up with a good WHY. It's slothful. Which is to say, lacking in ethics.

[marions ghost]

76. OK

I don't think we have a very ethical society by my understanding of what it means, so I wonder how one individual can hold his own ethics up as a standard. The only standard of conduct the average person seems to go by is "is it legal?" not is it moral or ethical. "Legal" goes along with proofs. If you can't prove it, it didn't happen (seems that's what you were saying about the allegation). A lot of people can't really get beyond that conservative way of thinking. Even if they follow Christian or other religions which suggest a higher morality they can't seem to connect the dots.

You are asking people to tell you why they perpetuate this story? Psychology of the oppressed. Payback time. If the shoe fits...

But maybe I'm not getting your point. Certainly I'd like to see a more ethical culture, but I wonder if we could ever agree on a definition. We're headed toward an ever more dysfunctional future, so maybe some stab at ethics would help to stave off a true implosion. But you seem to be talking about this ethical discipline of yours in personal terms rather than societal terms (comporting oneself, self discipline,etc). If it works for you fine, but is it necessary for others to do the same? Would we have a better society if others did? I don't know.

[alcibiades_mystery]

77. In ethics

the personal is social: categorical imperative.

In any case, I will try to convince others to behave a certain way. And yes, because I think it would make a better society.

[salin]

49. Does it matter? I think the point is that he has become

such a well-deserved target of ridicule (given his and his wife's past and very public words) that folks think that it could be plausable. With the exception of the truley protected in the Bushadmin (bush included) generally when a public figure becomes a point of ridicule (esp so quickly) the public life tenure becomes very short. Think senator Allen, who had presidential aspirations, just after his Macaca comment first flickered across the internet.

[Bluebear]

54. Yes, it matters....

....for if you read through the thread, if you even harbor suspicions that the story might be true, you YOURSELF have said diaper fantasies. :crazy:

[salin]

56. the whole thing, imo, is hilarious.

one of those absurd moments - including the type of logic you describe on this thread. when in the right frame of mind - I personally enjoy (ala get a chuckle out of) absurdity.

[pitohui]

74. yes the ho said it VERY sarcastically that he wasn't into anything unusual

you would have to be completely without a clue not to miss that meiers hates this man

[Maddy McCall]

19. I HAVE PROOF. PHOTOGRAPHIC PROOF!

I found this photo in a Canal Street gutter tonight. Beside a dirty diaper. Am waiting for DNA test results to come back on the diaper.

[WillyT]

39. Someone Sent Me This, But I Don't Think It's Real...

:evilgrin:

[Richard Steele]

52. I'm certain that's completely real...

I heard it on the internet:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1332383&mesg_id=1333332

[Bucky]

60. Gaaah!!

Don't do that!

[MADem]

36. Where's the TRUE, and No Proof But a Damned Good Hunch choice. NT

[kevinbgoode]

41. He's a Republican

That should be proof enough. They are all men trying to find their way back into their mother's womb.

[opihimoimoi]

42. My GUT FEELING tells me he wears dirty diapers while doing it

[many a good man]

46. Now THAT'S truthiness !!!

:rofl:

[Hubert Flottz]

44. That is not a cloud of suspicion hovering over Davy Vitter...

It's a swarm of green flies!

Here-say evidence is enough for the bushie kangaroo courts, the invading of Iraq and the DOJ...so I guess it's good enough for me...

Edit...If you do a little sniffing around you may discover that the good and honorable senator might have left a LOG(diarrhea...err...diary)laying around somewhere...

[peekaloo]

47. but without real evidence it's hard to pin this on him.

the man has relieved himself of a very heavy load by confessing to Gawd and his wife but without proof the allegations don't hold water. Taking an information leak provided by a prostitute just stains an otherwise clean reputation. These vicious allegations are leaving skid marks all over the truth highway, which is the path that Vitter must now wipe clean.

:patriot:

We must not soil ourselves by smearing the facts.

[Hubert Flottz]

50. I don't mean to be the one to squeeze the Charmin around here

but this entire thing really smells to high heaven. It's fairly clear to me that the guy is still quite full of shit. I'm beginning to think there ain't enough Rid-X in the country to make all this crap just go away. The guy needs to turn himself in to Roto Rudy Rehab and get some real help. I know that religion and superstition have their place in one's mental make-up, but I think that until the guy gets some professional help hell only continue to shit himself about all his mental/sexual/politically deviant, pwobwems. And more false drugs like Bob Dole pushes on my TV, is only going to compound this stinking type of crap!

I think it's only a matter of time before the shit really hits the fans!

Edit...One thing I'll have to say about Vitter's proven political prowess, when it comes to SLINGIN' MUD, Dave is a for real GOP "Expert!" Not just another Arabian Horse Breeding BROWNIE!

[peekaloo]

51. Roto Rudy Rehab.

:rofl:

but watch out cause ya know Rudy like to dress in women's clothes. Too much of this layerin' of fabrics might reduce Dave to one big puddle.



:D

[Hubert Flottz]

53. Dress Rudy up and he'd prolly soon get to the root of all of Dave's

Evil!

[NoPasaran]

48. We get to vote on whether something is true or not?

Truthiness indeed!

[Buns_of_Fire]

55. True or not, I don't care.

But I'd LOVE to see the SOB forced into a position where he has to DENY it! :evilgrin:

[alcibiades_mystery]

58. The poll results are remarkable, Truth Inspector

A real tribute to the board members, I should think. That few people understand what constitutes evidence is clear. That fewer seem to care is, well, despicable, but par for the course.

[marions ghost]

65. R U serous ???111

are you not over-interpreting the results of this unbiased scientific poll ?

If you can take anything out of the guillotine watch, it might reflect how abused our constituency has been.

[Alexander]

69. I personally CALLED his office - they said "No comment"...

If it's not true, they should easily say "No" or "That's ridiculous".

Or maybe Vitter remembers that he got caught in a lie, and he doesn't want to repeat his mistake.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/09/AR2007070902030.html

"Vitter is in his first Senate term after serving six years in the House. During his Senate campaign, Vitter was accused by a member of the Louisiana Republican State Central Committee of carrying on a lengthy affair with a prostitute in New Orleans's French Quarter.

In a radio interview, Vitter then called the allegation "absolutely and completely untrue" and dismissed it as "just crass Louisiana politics.""

[trashcanistanista]

72. Carville said it on national tv.

He knows people who know. Good enough for me.

[Holly_Hobby]

75. Jay Leno mentioned diapers on Friday night

on the Tonight Show.

Doesn't mean it's true, but I would think they would be concerned about lawsuits.

[TheBaldyMan]

79. it's a real kink some guys have - I saw it on Eurotrash so it must be true

Whatever flips your switches :shrug:

[Hubert Flottz]

80. How did this thread miss the DUzy awards?

I love the pictures LMAO!

[bryant69]

81. This certainly is a useful and meaningful discussion. n/t