Mr. Sleaze of the Blue Dress era still is in the top 250 most active sites on the Internet. The Drudge Report is half a page of meaningless headline links and a few photographs. But millions of people log on every day. He distorts the news, distracts from important events, - but is still on top. Someone explain, please.

Drudge - Dangerous and Dastardly
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/dangerous_drudge.html

He can distort the news if he wants - when has he ever claimed to be an unbiased news source? People like him because he uncovers a lot of stories and because he's a colorful character. Besides that stupid "news guy" hat he wears he doesn't bother me.

Out of curiosity, why is it sleazy to point out evidence of Clinton's lie (a stained blue dress) but not sleazy to be the person staining the dress?

I agree. I think the article I posted also agreed that Drudge has the right to do as he pleases. I just wondered at his continued popularity when the site has so little news that's of any importance. Eye of the beholder.
Also... I never commented that Clinton was less sleazy, did I? Let's try to stick to the topic....

A little overly sensitive when it comes to klinton?

Originally posted by skipper7
Also... I never commented that Clinton was less sleazy, did I? Let's try to stick to the topic....

Admittedly you did not, but the "Mr. Sleaze of the Blue Dress era" to me implied that Drudge was the worst thing that came out of the Lewinsky scandal. But you're right, not the point . . .

Drudge has always bugged me for some reason. Not for the content of what he says, more because he strikes me as someone that is overly impressed with himself.

Drudge is popular precisely because he is sleazy. You can read his "news" column and be completely informed on what is important and how you should think without expending any mental effort whatsoever. Predigested news for everyone.

BTW, Drudge's obbsession with Monica Lewinsky was certainly more sleazy than Clintons behavior. What happened between Clinton and Lewinsky was sex between two consenting adults. Nothing sleazy about it. What was sleazy was Drudge and other people who felt they had a right to know all the details about what went on.

Drudge is the very definition of sleazy.

The following definition from Webster's NW Dictionary:

sleazy adj. 1. flimsy or thin in substance 2. shoddy

Originally posted by Vilepagan

BTW, Drudge's obbsession with Monica Lewinsky was certainly more sleazy than Clintons behavior. What happened between Clinton and Lewinsky was sex between two consenting adults. Nothing sleazy about it. More sleazy than clinton's behavior?
Two consenting adults? Nothing sleazy about it? How bout the fact that clinton was married for starters? If that isnt sleazy enough for you, how bout the fact that clinton appeared on national tv and lied to the american public about "having sexual relations with that woman"? If it wasnt sleazy, then why lie about it? Im gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you are a liberal democrat. I could be wrong but i seriously doubt it. Only a liberal democrat would think that nothing was sleazy about being an adultering liar.
Geesh, what is your definition of the word "sleazy"?

Originally posted by HaVoK
More sleazy than clinton's behavior?
Two consenting adults? Nothing sleazy about it? How bout the fact that clinton was married for starters?

The fact that he was married and had sex outside of that marriage is of absolutely no consequence to me whatsoever. The only person who should be concerned about that is his wife.


If that isnt sleazy enough for you, how bout the fact that clinton appeared on national tv and lied to the american public about "having sexual relations with that woman"? If it wasnt sleazy, then why lie about it?

I think his statement was sleazy in the sense that it was flimsy and thin in substance. I also think his statement was incredibly stupid. His answer to the question should have been "it's none of your damn business".


Im gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you are a liberal democrat. I could be wrong but i seriously doubt it. Only a liberal democrat would think that nothing was sleazy about being an adultering liar.
Geesh, what is your definition of the word "sleazy"?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you are not comfortable dealing with people who don't fall into neat labelled categories. Actually I consider myself more of a Libertarian than a Democrat. I try not to mix sex with politics as it leads to overly moralistic politics, and really boring sex.

As far as my definition of "sleazy is concerned I believe my previous post contained Webster's definition of the word, but assuming you meant to ask what I consider sordid, or tacky, or tawdry, I will say that I consider prying into someone else's private sex life for the purpose of political gain, all of those things.

Part of me says that it's none of my business, and the other part of me says that it absolutely is my business because I was his boss and he's getting some at work in the office I'm paying him to occupy. Of course in my opinion once he lied about it he was absolutely fair game.

Again, I'm no huge fan of Drudge, but he didn't do anything any of the major networks wouldn't have done in a millisecond had they been privy to the blue dress info.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Part of me says that it's none of my business, and the other part of me says that it absolutely is my business because I was his boss and he's getting some at work in the office I'm paying him to occupy. Of course in my opinion once he lied about it he was absolutely fair game.

I'll agree that he shouldn't have been doing that kind of thing in the Oval Office. Obviously some people thought he was "fair game" before he lied about it or he wouldn't have been asked the question in the first place.


Again, I'm no huge fan of Drudge, but he didn't do anything any of the major networks wouldn't have done in a millisecond had they been privy to the blue dress info.

The fact that the major networks may have done it in a millisecond doesn't make it right. What happened between Clinton and Lewinsky wasn't "news", it was gossip, and really revolting gossip at that.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I'll agree that he shouldn't have been doing that kind of thing in the Oval Office. Obviously some people thought he was "fair game" before he lied about it or he wouldn't have been asked the question in the first place.



The fact that the major networks may have done it in a millisecond doesn't make it right. What happened between Clinton and Lewinsky wasn't "news", it was gossip, and really revolting gossip at that.

first of all, the white house press corps is made up of the most select members of the press for a reason. because whatever the president does is newsworthy. therefore, everything he does is "fair game".

well, when gossip moves to plagiarism from the nations highest citizen and breakage of commandments by same, it's not gossip any longer. i don't care what religion you are, but there are enoughchristians throughout the world that were appalled by the "gossip" that was true.

Originally posted by MajiPirate
first of all, the white house press corps is made up of the most select members of the press for a reason.

Selected by whom? And what is the "reason"?


because whatever the president does is newsworthy. therefore, everything he does is "fair game".

Horse hockey. I am not the least bit interested in finding out when the President has a bowel movement, whether he wears boxers or briefs, OR the private details of his sex life. If you wish to know these things you should be ashamed of yourself. It's gossip, pure and simple.

Since you brought up the press corps, you should note that the press did not always consider the President's sex life "fair game". JFK was widely known to "entertain" numerous women in the White House during his presidency. The press at the time felt it was beneath them to report such "news" because they saw it for what it was, just gossip.


well, when gossip moves to plagiarism from the nations highest citizen and breakage of commandments by same, it's not gossip any longer. i don't care what religion you are, but there are enoughchristians throughout the world that were appalled by the "gossip" that was true.

First of all Majipirate, "plagiarism" is when you copy someones writing without crediting the author. Second, the only reason I can accept for publicly delving into someones sex life, is if they have commited a crime related to their sex life. "Breakage" of one of your religions' commandments is NOT a crime (neccessarily), and therefore is no excuse for invading his privacy. If you found out that Clinton did not "honor his father and his mother" would you think that was sufficient reason for asking about his sexual habits?

Gossip is just wrong Majipirate, but if you're not willing to accept my opinion on the subject try these opinions:

Romans 1:29
They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,

Proverbs 20:19
A gossip betrays a confidence; so avoid a man who talks too much.

2 Corinthians 12:20
For I am afraid that when I come I may not find you as I want you to be, and you may not find me as you want me to be. I fear that there may be quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder.

LMAO, a vile pagan lecturing us on bible verse, now I have seen it all. I guess he missed all the verses about adultery in his search.

Originally posted by Travh20
LMAO, a vile pagan lecturing us on bible verse, now I have seen it all. I guess he missed all the verses about adultery in his search.

So did the pastor of my church when I was a kid. I don't see how having sex with someone that's not your wife is any worse than homosexuality in God's eyes.

Not to worry, She's got other concerns. Take a look at the devastation in the world......geez.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
So did the pastor of my church when I was a kid. I don't see how having sex with someone that's not your wife is any worse than homosexuality in God's eyes. I agree. I am certain he finds them both unacceptable.

Originally posted by Travh20
LMAO, a vile pagan lecturing us on bible verse, now I have seen it all. I guess he missed all the verses about adultery in his search.

No Trav I didn't miss the verses that condemn adultery in my search, the fact is, I didn't search for them since the subject of my post was gossip, not adultery.

But since we are on the subject of the Bible, it would seem that you and others are perfectly comfortable using the Bible to condemn those you disagree with, and just as comfortable ignoring your own transgressions even when that same Bible states pretty clearly that gossip is wrong.

Since I've never stated that I believe in the Bible as the word of God, I feel no special compulsion to live up to it's precepts. You and others who CLAIM to believe however, are only too quick to ignore what it says when you find yourselves transgressing. Happily, the Bible also condemns that behavior.

Matthew 7:5- Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Originally posted by HaVoK
I agree. I am certain he finds them both unacceptable.

I commend you for your faith HaVok, but since you are "certain" about God's thinking on the subjects of adultery and homosexuality, perhaps you'd tell me how he feels about gossip and hypocrisy.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I commend you for your faith HaVok, but since you are "certain" about God's thinking on the subjects of adultery and homosexuality, perhaps you'd tell me how he feels about gossip and hypocrisy. I am sure he finds them unacceptable as well. :)