TBD

TBD on Ning

Only in America can the lecherous leanings and extra-marital shenanigans of a dirty old man result in ratings gold and a national conversation.

The David Letterman Show scored its highest ratings yet as he aired his sexual proclivities in public under the guise of apologizing to his wife for betraying her with a variety of casual sexual partners. Partners, who, by the way, could have lost their jobs on Letterman's whim if they somehow displeased him. Or if Letterman ran out of Viagra.

Under the new rules implemented by self anointed elites, if a person is a celebrity, the normal rules of decent conduct are suspended. Unless, of course, the celebrity is a conservative. If only Senator "wide stance" Livingston were a Democrat, he'd have a restroom named in his honor. And probably his own personal peephole to boot.

Instead, as a member of the left, Letterman is accorded membership in the most valued and largest growing group in America. He is now an official 'victim.' And shame on those little tarts who used him in order to advance their own careers or merely to scratch a transient sexual itch.

Letterman's only sin appears to be his timing. He should have waited another week or so before stealing the headlines from pedophile rapist Roman Polanski. Whoppi Goldberg was right in the middle of convincing America that rape isn't rape and Hollywood had already garnered over 100 celebrity signatures calling for his release before Letterman rudely shifted the national conversation to his own sexual peccadilloes. Poor Roman.

The groundswell of elite support in favor of excusing Polanski for drugging and raping a 13 year-old girl 30 years ago could very well have resulted in freeing Polanski. Now, the fickleness and short attention spans of elite leftists may mean that Polanski may actually have to face the consequences of his past actions, instead of just getting his own star on Warsaw's 'walk of fame.' Life just isn't fair.

Former Boy President Bill Clinton can attest to that. After all, even though he was re-elected President after he made his historic seminal deposit on intern Monica Lewinsky's blue dress, he knows in his heart that the all the fuss was merely the result of a vast right wing conspiracy. The same right wing conspiracy that is now demanding that Roman Polanski be held accountable for the crime of which he was convicted. What meanies!


The vast right wing conspiracy just doesn't get it. Sex, anywhere, anytime, and with anyone, is now defined as 'empowerment.' Parading naked through the streets of San Francisco as cops stand idly by is considered a right. A right exclusive to gay men, but a right, nonetheless.

Pesky conservatives are only showing their ignorance when they object to the public swapping of spit between two men, or the sexual harassment of sweet young things by powerful men. And dirty old men have the right to express themselves sexually and publicly, without censure. As long as they continue to parrot the leftist agenda, that is.

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama's advisors are currently suggesting that he engage in sex with a subordinate. After all, that would immediately shift the nation's attention to the left's favorite topic instead of focusing on why Obama is ignoring our young fighting men in Afghanistan. But maybe, just maybe, Obama is more scared of Michelle than he is of the vast right wing conspiracy and the Taliban. Ya think?


Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina

Tags: Barack, David, Letterman, Obama, Polanski, Roman, sex

Views: 76

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You put a great deal of energy into this. It's quite a statement.
Does this have anything to do with the "Commentators Who Use Social Networking Sites to Manipulate" discussion? The question which explores whether columnists are 'testig their work' before letting it fly?...
I wouldn't be surprised if Obama's advisors are currently suggesting that he engage in sex with a subordinate. After all, that would immediately shift the nation's attention to the left's favorite topic instead of focusing on why Obama is ignoring our young fighting men in Afghanistan. But maybe, just maybe, Obama is more scared of Michelle than he is of the vast right wing conspiracy and the Taliban. Ya think?

This part of your statement is blatantly offensive. In my opinion you don't just owe the Obama's an appology but every one on this site.
I wish you would go pettle your papers somewhere else.
In a RightBias.com article by Nancy Morgan called Color Me Racist, dated September 17, 2009 she states:

I guess its OK to call white guys liars. Even when they can't come up with any specific lie. Its just something everyone knows. Bush lied. Strangely enough, I've never been taken up on my challenge to pay $100.00 to anyone who can cite a specific lie that Bush told. I digress.

Bush quote/lie : "Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
State of the Union Address 1/28/2003

Truth : The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.

Bush quote/lie : "Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."
Bush speech to the nation 10/7/2002

Truth : Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there. IAEA report to UN Security Council 1/27/2003

There are plenty more...I'll take a money order.
Based on your premise then Clinton, heads of states across the world and the whole intelligience community lied.
A lie is when you make a statement you know to be false. When did Bush do that?
Nancy
I was going to let this pass but this column contains such a large quantity of taurine fecses that it defies description.

The David Letterman Show scored its highest ratings yet as he aired his sexual proclivities in public under the guise of apologizing to his wife for betraying her with a variety of casual sexual partners. Partners, who, by the way, could have lost their jobs on Letterman's whim if they somehow displeased him. Or if Letterman ran out of Viagra.

In the first place, Letterman did not air his situation as an apology to his wife. He didn't air it as a result of an expose. He chose to meet it head on, before it hit the newspapers. He didn't try to weasle out of it, as every, single politician has done; instead of saying, "I did not have sex with that (those) woman," Letterman chose to come clean. He didn't blame his partners, he didn't deny he did it, he took the blame right on his shoulders (see below) Doubtless your prurient inetrest wuld have been aroused had he not said anything and waited for the NY POst to break the story. Then you really could have had a rant.

In the second place, nobody has ever claimed that there was any coercion on Letterman's part. There has been no claim, or even hint by anyone, that there was coercion or harassment involved. While this may change (whenever someone figures they can cash in on it), these were all consensual.

Third, how about Stephanie Birkitt, who was sleeping with Letterman at the same time as she was living with the 48 Hours produce, Joe Halderman? How come she seems to be getting a pass? She seems to be on the same level of sleaze that you accuse Letterman of being.

He should have waited another week or so before stealing the headlines from pedophile rapist Roman Polanski. Whoppi Goldberg was right in the middle of convincing America that rape isn't rape and Hollywood had already garnered over 100 celebrity signatures calling for his release before Letterman rudely shifted the national conversation to his own sexual peccadilloes. Poor Roman.

The groundswell of elite support in favor of excusing Polanski for drugging and raping a 13 year-old girl 30 years ago could very well have resulted in freeing Polanski. Now, the fickleness and short attention spans of elite leftists may mean that Polanski may actually have to face the consequences of his past actions, instead of just getting his own star on Warsaw's 'walk of fame.' Life just isn't fair.


And you're living on Uranus. What "groundswell of elite support" has there been? Harvey Weinstein? Whoopie Goldberg (who backed away faster from Polanski faster than a nun in a dildo shop when she realized how out of step she was)?
Can you point out to any public support for Polanski other than these two hockey pucks? or is it all in your mind?
Roman Polanski has been the punch line of a number of satiric stories, jokes, etc for well over thirty years. The only "groundswell of support," elite or otherwise, for Roman Polanski is the blockage of blood between your ears.

And I might point out, vis-a-vis the first point, that Bill Clinton did not get himself into that much trouble because he received oral gratification from Ms Lewinsky. He got himself impeached because he lied about it.

No one is excusing what Mr Letterman did and he is not asking for our pardon (or our pity). The only one Mr Letterman owes an explanation to is his wife and I suspect he will be spending a long time attoning for his misdeeds. (Either that or he will be living with half his considerable pile of stuff)

it seems to me that what you are really pissed at Letterman about is not that he had sex with his staff but that he didn't wait for the media to break the story, thus denying you the chant to rant about morality and deception for a couple of weeks.

So, Ms Morgam I only have one word for you:

Fail
Well, she certainly brings out interesting conversation. For that I thank her.
Nick,
Kudos to you. You actually addressed the points I made in my column instead of just attacking the author. I appreciate your input.
Nancy
At least I declare my leanings - unlike the old media. Yes, I'm a conservative and I don't hide that fact. My readers read my articles knowing my politics. Would that more journalists did that
I dont get it? What do you want? What is this thread about?
But given that, your readers only get one side of the argument don't they. It's no necessarily the truth. It's simply your take on the truth.

But when you get right down to it, isn't that what all of our posts are? Our take on (what we perceive to be) the truth?

I have no great problem with Ms Morgan's position on this (although I totally disagree with it) and I suspect she went a bit overboard in an attempt to stimulate some conversation (not to mention pissing off a bunch of folks ). In the context of the point, Bill Clinton is certainly fair game but how the president fits into this is not only beyond me but certainly doesn't do anything for her argument, since it's a non sequiter.

I do find it somewhat amusing, though, that in defense of her position, she leaves out some significant facts (at least, as we currently understand them )

RSS

Badge

Loading…

© 2019   Created by Aggie.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service