- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
From Columbia on the presidential detail for apparently engaging in prostitution
From Columbia on the presidential detail for apparently engaging in prostitution
Another "good time was had by all" on the taxpayer dime.
Meh. As long as they paid for the hookers out of their own pockets...
Meh. As long as they paid for the hookers out of their own pockets...
Meh. As long as they paid for the hookers out of their own pockets...
damn, those 12 guys are thorough... soliciting prostitutes is legal in Colombia ...
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that when the president is out and about...his secret service detail are on duty around the clock..and philandering with prostitutes isnt on duty. They are in for some more discipline that just losing their position.
For days at a time? I rather think not. They work in shifts like any other security personnel, and they're "on call" when they are not actively on-duty. As long as they were willing and able to respond to any situation that required their attention, their immoral extracurriculars had no bearing whatsoever upon their jobs.
And as justabubba has pointed out, they weren't in violation of local laws.
There are no grounds upon which to "discipline" them, and certainly none for them to be subject to any penalties beyond loss of employment.
Certainly his greatest content. Is it possible to bookmark a post?:3oops:That has to be by far the best post you have ever made on this board OC!!
For days at a time? I rather think not. They work in shifts like any other security personnel, and they're "on call" when they are not actively on-duty. As long as they were willing and able to respond to any situation that required their attention, their immoral extracurriculars had no bearing whatsoever upon their jobs.
And as justabubba has pointed out, they weren't in violation of local laws.
There are no grounds upon which to "discipline" them, and certainly none for them to be subject to any penalties beyond loss of employment.
They would have been better off doing this with Bill in the Clinton administration.Oh and it being legal to hawk prostitutes in columbia or anywhere else has no bearing on the Presidents Detail disobeying orders and protocol...you can believe discipline will be forthcoming....
They would have been better off doing this with Bill in the Clinton administration.
Bill would have taken the chubby ones!They would have been better off doing this with Bill in the Clinton administration.
They would have been better off doing this with Bill in the Clinton administration.
Meh. As long as they paid for the hookers out of their own pockets...
For days at a time? I rather think not. They work in shifts like any other security personnel, and they're "on call" when they are not actively on-duty. As long as they were willing and able to respond to any situation that required their attention, their immoral extracurriculars had no bearing whatsoever upon their jobs.
And as justabubba has pointed out, they weren't in violation of local laws.
There are no grounds upon which to "discipline" them, and certainly none for them to be subject to any penalties beyond loss of employment.
I don't even understand what the problem is here. They did nothing illegal.
So you don't think that the President's Secret Service detail should be above reproach?
That it's okay they engage in conduct that would make them susceptible to blackmail?
That it's okay to let a protected space be infiltrated with prostitutes...who may or may not be prostitutes? Who may have other agendas?
I don't see anything wrong with using prostitutes.
I don't see anything wrong with using prostitutes.
Blackmail for what? They did nothing illegal. Other than their wives, if they're married, who would care?
That should be a problem no matter who they bring into protected space. Is that what they did? Bring unauthorized persons into protected space?