Gov Gibbons is a philandering stalker

[Kunikos]

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=8458918

man how creepy, some wife of a reno doctor who isn't even divorced yet, he sends her hundreds of text messages over the course of a month

i guess he's getting a divorce, hopefully also from office

[tysonK]

I hope he has the unlimited plan.

[knucklesplitter]

It's not stalking if the 860 messages are welcome. Still... typical GOP - the family values party and all. At least he's not cruising for gay sex in airport bathrooms or sending dirty text messages to young male congressional paiges.

Maf54: Hey JG what u wearing ?
69JimG69: diaper & ball gag
Maf54: SWEET text KattyK see if hubby home
69JimG69: done bring KY & strap-on

And I can never tell if those are Gibbons' upper or lower teeth in his photos...

[Dean]

It is old news, and not pertinent to his ability to govern IMHO.

Do you have information confirming sexual activity to justify your philandering statement? And it sure doesn't sound like stalking.

If we sacked every politician who got a divorce or might have had a relationship with a woman who was not his wife, we would run out of politicians which I'm not saying would be bad, but again, how does this have anything to do with his ability to do his job?

[knucklesplitter]

Originally Posted by Dean

It is old news, and not pertinent to his ability to govern IMHO.

Do you have information confirming sexual activity to justify your philandering statement? And it sure doesn't sound like stalking.

If we sacked every politician who got a divorce or might have had a relationship with a woman who was not his wife, we would run out of politicians which I'm not saying would be bad, but again, how does this have anything to do with his ability to do his job?

Yeah, and assaulting cocktail waitresses in parking garages either. What does that got to do with his job performance? Huh?.


Or taking kickbacks from defense comtractors - totally unrelated too.

Jim Gibbons - scandal machine, corrupt, idiot, and asshole. That makes him a poor elected official in my book.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by knucklesplitter

Yeah, and assaulting cocktail waitresses in parking garages either. What does that got to do with his job performance? Huh?.


Or taking kickbacks from defense comtractors - totally unrelated too.

Jim Gibbons - scandal machine, corrupt, idiot, and asshole. That makes him a poor elected official in my book.

I do not entirely disagree with that statement, but that was not relevant to the original post. I would also remind you that even politicians are presumed innocent until proven guilty. I am not defending him, but am also not aware of any convictions or ethics reprimands related to these alleged incidents.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by Dean

It is old news, and not pertinent to his ability to govern IMHO.

Do you have information confirming sexual activity to justify your philandering statement? And it sure doesn't sound like stalking.

If we sacked every politician who got a divorce or might have had a relationship with a woman who was not his wife, we would run out of politicians which I'm not saying would be bad, but again, how does this have anything to do with his ability to do his job?

It's only relevant because the Republican Party stands up and screams bloody murder about supposed "family values" and individual character, but they have just as much to sweep under the rug as anyone else.

[JonnydaJibba]

Originally Posted by knucklesplitter

Insert most politicians here____________ - scandal machine, corrupt, idiot, and asshole. That makes him a poor elected official in my book.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Dean

It is old news, and not pertinent to his ability to govern IMHO.

Bullshit. If the person that's supposed to be busy running the state is instead in court everyday fighting a messy divorce, plus dodging reporters, plus spending his weekends banging hookers, etc. it directly takes away from his ability to do the job he was elected to. Never mind the side effect in job performance if the guy is perpetually pissed off by his personal problems.

So sure, an official's private life shouldn't impact his/her ability to do their job and should therefore remain private; but when their private life does impact their job, it certainly becomes the public's business.

Answer me this: if the president was a coke addict, shouldn't that be important public information?

[Dean]

Originally Posted by sperry

Bullshit. If the person that's supposed to be busy running the state is instead in court everyday fighting a messy divorce, plus dodging reporters, plus spending his weekends banging hookers, etc. it directly takes away from his ability to do the job he was elected to. Never mind the side effect in job performance if the guy is perpetually pissed off by his personal problems.

So sure, an official's private life shouldn't impact his/her ability to do their job and should therefore remain private; but when their private life does impact their job, it certainly becomes the public's business.

Answer me this: if the president was a coke addict, shouldn't that be important public information?

Huh? A Legal Divorce = Illegal drug use? I don't see the analogy.

And now he is allegedly banging hookers?

Where do you get this stuff, and depending on the county, "banging hookers" is perfectly legal, married or not.

Should you be fired because you regularly get pissed off on your lunch hour by drive through staff?

Again, I am not defending him, but if you want to attack him, attack him on his job performance, not his personal life.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Dean

Huh? A Legal Divorce = Illegal drug use? I don't see the analogy.

And now he is allegedly banging hookers?

Where do you get this stuff, and depending on the county, "banging hookers" is perfectly legal, married or not.

Should you be fired because you regularly get pissed off on your lunch hour by drive through staff?

Again, I am not defending him, but if you want to attack him, attack him on his job performance, not his personal life.

How about reading what I actually posted, instead of making up your own meaning to my words.

"the person that's supposed to be busy running the state" doesn't say "Gibbons". I don't know the specifics about him, other than he's got a reputation for being a tool box, so I was making a general statement about elected officials. My point was that if the person that's elected for a position has a fuck-ton of personal problems, at some point they do become the public's business.

Again, for example: if the president is a crackhead, don't you think that's potentially significant enough for the public to care about?

You argue that a person's personal life shouldn't be factored into their ability to do their job, and I say that's bullshit. Someone may be totally capable at doing the job, but if their personal life is such a wreck that it might affect their job performance, that's info that should be public so we can vote in an informed manner. It's the same reason presidential candidates release their health records.

[JonnydaJibba]

His personal life does affect how he does his job as Governor. A divorce will affect every aspect of your life no matter how much you try to put it behind you.

[Dean]

Scott, I am just interpreting what I read, not making up anything. You threw in the part about hookers relating to somebody governing a state. I assumed you were still talking about Gibbons at that point.

I have no problem if somebody wants to report the president is a crackhead if true and he should be prosecuted if so, but to remotely equate that to somebody getting a divorce is silly IMHO.

Should IGT fire you if your break up with your girlfriend? Or maybe they should for posting some portion of your almost 15,000 posts on SECCS from the office because it clearly makes you a bad programmer.

Yes, the press should report this stuff, but it is up to the public to decide if that is relevant to his job performance, but lets make sure we have some facts, not just supposition or suspicion. Our elected officials deserve the same rights and liberties the rest of us do.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by JonnydaJibba

His personal life does affect how he does his job as Governor. A divorce will affect every aspect of your life no matter how much you try to put it behind you.

A divorce is is not grounds for dismissal anywhere and I would guess that it is essentially protected as are race, sex, religion, etc...

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Dean

Scott, I am just interpreting what I read, not making up anything. you threw in the part about hookers relating to somebody governing a state. I assumed you were still talking about Gibbons at that point.

I have no problem if somebody wants to report the president is a crackhead if true and he should be prosecuted if so, but to remotely equate that to somebody getting a divorce is silly IMHO.

Should IGT fire you if your break up with your girlfriend? Or maybe they should for posting some portion of your almost 15,000 posts on SECCS from the office because it clearly makes you a bad programmer. .

You're confusing scale with specific offense. It's not the specific problem that's the issue, it's how much that problem affects the individual. If my drive-thru anger, or a breakup did cause me enough distress that my job performance suffers then perhaps I should lose my job. But in general, those things aren't usually enough to warrant public attention.

On the other hand, Gov Gibbons seems to be perpetually required to publicly acknowledge this or that personal issue, one of which is a massive atomic-blast level divorce. I think it's pretty safe to say that there is obvious potential for his personal issues to affect his job performance.

So, like you just said:

Originally Posted by Dean

Yes, the press should report this stuff, but it is up to the public to decide if that is relevant to his job performance, but lets make sure we have some facts, not just supposition or suspicion. Our elected officials deserve the same rights and liberties the rest of us do

this stuff should be of public interest, because it is pertinent to his ability to do his job, which earlier you said it wasn't.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by Dean

A divorce is is not grounds for dismissal anywhere and I would guess that it is essentially protected as are race, sex, religion, etc...

Getting a divorce is in no way grounds for impeachment. But coming in to work every day either going nuclear over your estranged wife's divorce attorney's latest maneuvering, or obsessing over the skirt you're chasing in the typing pool, or making lists of 'enemies' because you're such a dick most certainly has bearing on one's ability to perform their duties.

[Kevin M]

Damn, Scott beat me to it.

[Dean]

I am not confusing anything. Anything any public figure does gets blown up by the media and I certainly take that into consideration as well.

I would be more interested if the story was that he has missed key meetings with legislators and constituents and made bad decisions related to the state budget, etc... Last I heard, he was making the hard decisions on the budget that the legislators didn't or couldn't. Again,not defending him, I just did not agree with the opinions expressed in the original post.

If you honestly believe getting a divorce or any of these other alleged acts makes him a bad governor, start an impeachment campaign or don't vote for him next election.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by Dean

... or don't vote for him next election.

And that's why we should know about stuff like this. It can be relevant information.

[dknv]

From everything I have taken in about Gibbons' actions, statements, and what is in the press, in my opinion he has been cheating on his wife. In my book, that is only 1 tick under being a wife beater/abuser, on the top 10 list of 'bad husband behaviors'. And, if he has done this in his personal life, to his own family, that causes me to be greatly concerned about his decision-making ability, and how discerning he's going to be with the decisions he's responsible for, for the state, and residents, of Nevada.

[Kunikos]

Good lord, what did I start here?

Anyway, if your spouse was texting some married-but-estranged hobag/manho "friend" that you have never heard of before in a different city tens of times per day, don't you think you would be thinking "IS THIS FUCKER CHEATING ON ME"? Even if he isn't cheating on his wife, it doesn't look good in the court of public opinion. And if you are an elected official, that's pretty much all that counts.

I'm with Scott here, I mean no you shouldn't be fired from a job for getting divorced but maybe you might think twice about someone who is so deceptive or disrespectful to their spouse-- someone who is supposed to be the most IMPORTANT person in their life. If they treat their spouse that way, what the fuck chance do the rest of us have with them?

[knucklesplitter]

The Rodeo's in town. Forget the horse- ride the Guvnuh!

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/...863217013/1027

[Dean]

I guess what bothers me most about this is that we get what we deserve....

Why would anyone with any actual skill in management of any form want to subject themselves to the life in higher level public service.

I don't recall any similar pictures of any of the fortune 500's CEOs, presidents, etc. that have a budget larger than NVs and more shareholders than NV's population. So what is the possible enticement to qualified individuals to enter public life? Certainly, not the pay.

I am not saying we don't have any good politicians, just that they must be gluttons for punishment, masochists and/or truly committed to subject themselves to the unrelenting and unrelated scrutiny they are under.

As long as it is legal, I want my politicians to be happy. If that means smoking, social drinking, prostitutes, alternative lifestyles of any form, etc... so be it!

Why you have to be part of a god fearing Norman Rockwell family to get elected is beyond me.

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by Dean

Why you have to be part of a god fearing Norman Rockwell family to get elected is beyond me.

Because the majority of voters are religious fruitcakes.

[Kunikos]

I think the US is the most religious first-world nation on earth, and despite the "freedom of religion" provisions in the Constitution there is no way you could be elected unless you are a protestant. Mitt Romney never had a chance; can you imagine the mud-slinging ads, especially after the whole Texas religious Mormon sect who had pregnant 12 year old girls and shit...? I mean shit they shot JFK for being a Catholic...