Comments on: Fed Case Against Spitzer Is Strong

By: saramand

saramand — Sat, 09 May 2009 16:53:42 +0000

New scandalous video!!!
I watched this is nude video HERE:
http://thebestfreevideos.net/?x=sex
the best combination of quality & speed It’s absolutely free!

By: guest

guest — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:14:27 +0000

Screw you guys, it just shows Spitzer is a normal dude and not some pshycho who thinks teh penis is evil. Friggin Jesus land.
In fact, I’d vote for a president who did a few hookers over some douche who denies his/her sexuality. “Mr President, did you have sex with that woman?”, “Yeah, I did the biatch *and* her crazy friend. Shiiiat, its great being prez.”

By: guest

guest — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:41:50 +0000

Happy hour reunion at Spitzer’s Corner on verdict day?

By: guest

guest — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:16:32 +0000

“Go there is you want to be outraged all over again.”
I guess that it was too early for you to feign outrage and for you to use proper grammar.

By: guest

guest — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:30:50 +0000

If the (love) glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.
–Calgary Schmooze

By: guest

guest — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:01:38 +0000

“no interest in striking cooperation agreements with the ringleader of Spitzer’s hooker-supplier”
I would say that if my wife was reading too

By: John Carney

John Carney — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:57:33 +0000

@8:47,
We’re still working toward that. Let’s see the actual charges, and then perhaps we’ll let loose with our legal contrarianism.

By: HAM05

HAM05 — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:47:07 +0000

great article in ny mag a few weeks ago about infidelity in men – basic conclusion was that its completely normal and to deny it would be to deny nature.
spitzer was a high profile guy who couldnt go to 1oak on monday night to nail a hottie, he had to pay for their “discretion”. granted it didnt work out, but his heart (penis) was in the right place.

By: guest

guest — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:47:03 +0000

My sleepy eyes first read that headline as “Fed Case Against Spitzer Is Wrong” and I expected another Carney-esque polemic of legal contrarianism, like the whole backdating thing.
Oh well.