|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jul 4, 2009 15:51:19 GMT -5
let me see if i've got this right. as long as i don't go around preaching that adultery is immoral then i'm clear to screw around all i want.
is that correct?
also, if i rob a bank will i get a lesser punishment if i didn't go around telling people that bank robbery was wrong prior to the crime?
if i beat the shit out of my wife and kids do i stand a better chance in court because i didn't preach to other father/husbands that they shouldn't beat their family?
if i'm caught speeding will the cop give me a break if i tell him that i haven't been preaching to others that speeding is bad?
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Jul 4, 2009 16:53:32 GMT -5
Subdjoe, the country doesn't need to be preached to, period. Our politicians were elected to perform a job and that is what they should do... Good, so next time the former junior senator from IL starts preaching I'll keep that in mind. The next time Queen Nancy starts preaching about gun violence, I'll remember that. The next time any leftist starts preaching about anything, I'll remember that.As for the holier-than-thou group, they loose respect of not only their partner as did Clinton, but of the country for preaching moral values and then committing adultery.
You are saying that what Clinton did is OK because he never said that it wasn't. Do you see how far into the filth you have sunk? What is even more importand, do you even care? |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Jul 4, 2009 23:46:35 GMT -5
quote:
Maybe I should have been more crystal clear here. What Clinton did was wrong. What Edwards did was wrong. What Ensign did was wrong. What Sanford did was wrong. They are all guilty of adultery.
If one goes around preaching adultery is wrong and then commits it, it is hypocritical.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Jul 4, 2009 23:59:46 GMT -5
quote: Maybe I should have been more crystal clear here. What Clinton did was wrong. What Edwards did was wrong. What Ensign did was wrong. What Sanford did was wrong. They are all guilty of adultery. If one goes around preaching adultery is wrong and then commits it, it is hypocritical. You are arguing both ways now, Mink. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Jul 5, 2009 0:04:46 GMT -5
I am saying adultery is wrong. You guys imply it is acceptable if the person's position is not as high or it isn't rape....
in other words, Ensign and Sanford's case is not as bad as Clinton or Edwards, and that is ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Jul 5, 2009 1:18:50 GMT -5
I am saying adultery is wrong. You guys imply it is acceptable if the person's position is not as high or it isn't rape.... in other words, Ensign and Sanford's case is not as bad as Clinton or Edwards, and that is ridiculous. No, you are the one saying that it isn't as bad because Slick willy et al have no morals. Since they hae none to profess or proclaim, then they can't fall short of the mark. As I said before, at least Sanford has some morals and values which in his human weakness he was unable to live up to. Slick Willy didn't even bother to try. Do you see the difference? |
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Jul 5, 2009 1:50:14 GMT -5
No sir, you are truly naive. You believe everything you read on right-wing blogs, hear on right-wing radio, and read in right-wing book that you are careful to selectively choose. You are severely myopic. In the words of Major Payne, "oh really." Well, we can go to your favorite source for Juanita Broaddrick's story. Or we can see a story about her Dateline Interview. But, no matter how you look at it, I did not get the story from a "right wing blog or book." In fact, only a person entirely devoid of character would suggest such a thing, considering how well documented the story of Juanita Broaddrick is. You would would have to be so mentally ill and in such denial as to believe that she was not like so many victims from that era who thought no one would believe her, especially considering who she is accusing. But, considering you, and Mink, wish to compare an adulterous individual to sexual predator, I can see why you would have an issue if you do not take the classic approach of people of your mindset, ignore the problem and deny it. Which explains your poo poo attitude of wanting to say I only listen to "right wing blogs." To bad you are wrong, as well as ignorant of recent history. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Jul 5, 2009 2:22:04 GMT -5
I am saying adultery is wrong. You guys imply it is acceptable if the person's position is not as high or it isn't rape.... in other words, Ensign and Sanford's case is not as bad as Clinton or Edwards, and that is ridiculous. No, you are the one saying that it isn't as bad because Slick willy et al have no morals. Since they hae none to profess or proclaim, then they can't fall short of the mark. As I said before, at least Sanford has some morals and values which in his human weakness he was unable to live up to. Slick Willy didn't even bother to try. Do you see the difference? No, I am saying those who preached that adultery is wrong and then commit the act, is hypocritical. You excuse Sanford for committing adultery because he preached morals and values, therefore he must be of a higher caliber. President Clinton's infidelity was wrong as well, but he didn't preach to the country as Sanford did, so he is just a cad. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Jul 5, 2009 2:30:00 GMT -5
capttankona:
Your claim is way out there in right field, regardless. Pres. Clinton has not been charged with rape.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Jul 5, 2009 11:50:51 GMT -5
No, you are the one saying that it isn't as bad because Slick willy et al have no morals. Since they hae none to profess or proclaim, then they can't fall short of the mark. As I said before, at least Sanford has some morals and values which in his human weakness he was unable to live up to. Slick Willy didn't even bother to try. Do you see the difference? No, I am saying those who preached that adultery is wrong and then commit the act, is hypocritical. You excuse Sanford for committing adultery because he preached morals and values, therefore he must be of a higher caliber. President Clinton's infidelity was wrong as well, but he didn't preach to the country as Sanford did, so he is just a cad. OK, you win. Those without any morals are SOOO superior to those with morals who fall short. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Jul 5, 2009 12:49:56 GMT -5
Again what the left here is looking past in their rush to judge hypocrisy is that Bill Clinton's infidelity was never the issue in his case. It was his knowingly making false statements under oath to a federal grand jury and in deposition during the discovery phase of the Paula Jones suit. Those would be a criminal offense... a felony in fact.
Pretty much all those on the right who've gotten their wicks caught in their zippers have either resigned outright or stepped away from the limelight and into political and personal obscurity.
In contrast, Mr. Clinton has stubbornly soldiered on despite pleading no contest (that would be admitting guilt for you on the left) to the perjury charges, being fined $250K for it, surrendering his law license as a condition of sentencing, being impeached and putting the nation through the spectacle of a trial in the Senate.
Mr. Clinton settled, including permanent gag orders, with Paula Jones to avoid a civil court trial that he most likely could not have won, particularly given his perfidy in the criminal investigation as well as his admittedly less than candid testimony in the civil action.
And yet, in his post presidency, he is still lionized by the Democrat left where ever he goes. He is wined and dined and treated like royalty. He gets $500K per speech and jets around the world continuing to try and exert influence even though he has no real power short of (maybe, but I kind of doubt it) sleeping with the current Secretary of State.
He is a convicted felon...... he admitted guilt. Yet he is still out there on the stage, a hero to the left.
At least Governor Spitzer of New York had the common decency to resign and shut his pie hole when he was well and truly caught using a Brazilian hooker on the state's dime. His abrupt, and proper, resignation was most unlike many other prominent Democrats such as Barney "what gay prostitution ring in my basement" Frank, Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd... champions of the "waitress sandwich", Mel "what 16 year old girl" Reynolds, William "Cold Cash" Jefferson, Kwame "most felonies by a Democrat pol" Kilpatrick, Henry "so I was paying a hooker with government money" Cisneros. Shall we go on?
Mark Foley resigned.... even though it was proven after the fact that nothing he did amounted to criminality. Larry Craig is in a political wasteland, he is essentially done. So is Mark Sanford. None of these men have a political future and when they were found out they stepped back as they should have.
But not Bill Clinton.... and not Democrats in general, save for Mr. Spitzer.
So yeah... you won't get any argument out of me that there are some on the right who have no business throwing rocks at glass houses. But what is striking is the number of Democrats over the past 25-30 years who have actively engaged in criminal misconduct, many times rooted in their own abherrent sexual behavior, who are either still in office or who fought tooth and nail to the bitterest of the bitter ends.. some not resigning until after they had been convicted and sentenced in criminal courts.
Republican, or right wing for that matter, hypocrisy? My ass.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Jul 5, 2009 12:53:08 GMT -5
"He is a convicted felon...... he admitted guilt. Yet he is still out there on the stage, a hero to the left."
Which is something I still don't understand - that felony should have disqualified him from holing office.
|
|
