Hello:

Yup, ole Republican Governor Sanford of South Carolina got caught with his pants down, so he went on TV and cried a little. Why not? It's worked before?

Did he quit?? Nahhh. He's still qualified to run the state, even though he's a lying, cheating, hypocritical bastard.

excon

Yeah I heard a democrat did the same and refuses to leave office until 2010. I believe his crime was messing with teenage girls.

Man he is a cheater also I bet he goes to church every Sunday too. I wonder if Ed Rendell is a cheater I doubt it. I'm sure he has probably tried but who would want that big fat cheese steak belly rubbing on them.

Goodby and good riddance. Rather learn of this now . How he thought he could get away with this stunt is beyond me.

It is important to beatup and discredit any potential Republican candidate asap so your next target is Mitch Daniels of Indiana . Get to work if the hit squads can stop beating on Sarah Palin .

Hello again, tom:

Not really. I hate 'em all equally. Hang on. I'm about to post what piece of crap that Democratic congressman Jim McDermott is.

excon

I say term limits for all of them . The Republicans are in serious need of house cleaning and the Democrats are over due.

Hello again, tom:

I think the mistake the Republicans made was making private behavior the government's business. It's come back to bite because NONE of us live up to what we aspire to.

But, the Republicans made our aspirations a rule - a rule that nobody could live up to. They set themselves up for a fall.

Is there a lesson here? Sure. Get the government out of the bedroom.

excon

Hello again, tom:

I think the mistake the Republicans made was making private behavior the government's business. It's come back to bite because NONE of us live up to what we aspire to.

But, the Republicans made our aspirations a rule - a rule that nobody could live up to. They set themselves up for a fall.

Is there a lesson here? Sure. Get the government out of the bedroom.

excon

Well, I disagree with the "nobody could live up to" idea.

There are a lot of people in this country who live a clean moral life. It is not impossible to do so.

The real lesson here is to quit electing jerks.

I never used to be in favor of term limits. But I'm getting there. I used to think that there were built-in term limits in the system, and they were called elections. But I'm slowly changing my mind on this one. Term limits for Congress would be a good thing... at the very least, no single individual would ever get enough time in office to do THAT much damage before getting the boot.

Elliot

Adios Gov. Sanford. What a boob.

Kathryn Jean Lopez offered a quote in her latest column (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTZkNzdmOWY0NzNmZGUyN2EwZDExNDhjMTYzYjQyZWE=) I think is appropriate though:


“We modern men and women hate hypocrisy, but we have a mistaken idea of what this means,” Fr. Thomas D. Williams, author of Knowing Right from Wrong: A Christian Guide to Conscience (Hachette, 2009), recently said. “Some say that a hypocrite doesn’t practice what he preaches, but this isn’t hypocrisy. None of us perfectly practices what he preaches. We all fall short. The solution of lowering our moral bar to match our imperfect behavior doesn’t make us less hypocritical; it just makes us more mediocre. Keeping the bar high and maintaining our moral ideals helps us to strive for moral greatness rather than settling for moral poverty.”

I'd rather we set ourselves up for a fall than lower the moral bar to make us more mediocre.

Not sure that Sanford takes that high a moral position . I really don't care .

From my perspective he has been a good governor . I find it disgusting that he would take a leave during Father's Day weekend to have a trist. But more important ;I find his actions and judgement lacking and irresponsible for the position he holds. He is too important in his role as Governor to go AWOL .

I have told you before that the sex stuff is not a big factor in my weighing a candidate . But his judgement is a big factor . To the Dems it doesn't seem to matter. While they hoot and howl at a Republican getting caught with their pants down they celebrate their lower than low slugs... be they Teddy Kennedy ;Bill Clintoon ,or Barney Frank.

I'd rather we set ourselves up for a fall than lower the moral bar to make us more mediocre.

Ahhh... you are making the classic mistake of the Conservative. You are creating ideals for yourself that liberals can use against you during election times. After all, it is easier to get elected if you have no moral ideals whatsoever than if you have high moral ideals and fail even once to live up to them.

Personally, I agree with your position. I'd prefer to make that particular mistake.

Elliot

Leave it to Lurch to make a bad Palin joke out of this. John Kerry said “Too bad, if a governor had to go missing it couldn’t have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin.’’

When are women's groups going to come out against the continuing attacks on Sarah Palin?

And so not to just change the subject on you, Sanford's still a jerk.

Sanford's still a jerk.

Yes he is .Until this point he was a conservative Republican who walked the walk as well as talked the talk. When he was in Congress he practiced the frugality he preached sleeping on a cot to save money. He was a consistent critic of pork spending ,which of course reached it's peak recently ,when he attempted to refuse bucket list Federal funding with mandates the State could not afford.

He was on the fast track to national recognition and would have been a serious candidate .

Hubris and poor judgement is his downfall... not the moral issues . He went overnight from a man of sound reason to a man who didn't get that Governors don't go AWOL overseas to have trists in violation of their lawful duties and responsibilities .By law he was supposed to put his second in command in charge if he was not in a position to perform his duties .Obviously being out of the country with his cell phone off qualifies as one of those occasions.

The way I see it ;he did the Republicans a huge favor by self destructing now instead of 2012 .

The way I see it ;he did the Republicans a huge favor by self destructing now instead of 2012 .

Absolutely.

Of course if he were a Dem he could've looked in the camera and said “I did not have sex with that woman!” Then bite his lower lip,and let his eyes moisten a bit.
Yeah ;that's the ticket !

Yes he is .Until this point he was a conservative Republican who walked the walk as well as talked the talk. Hello tom:

Here's where I think you guys miss the mark... I don't think he EVER walked the walk. To ME, and I don't know about you, a guy who walks the walk, WALKS it, and doesn't fall off. Those that fall off, NEVER walked it the first place. They FAKE it. In MY life experiences, people who WALK the WALK are COUNT-ON-ABLE! Like O'Reilly said, his vows were principles until they weren't.

As galveston pointed out, because this guy didn't doesn't mean that there aren't people who walk the walk. But, when you point out THIS guy as one who did, but somehow lost his way, you discredit the people who actually DO have gumption to live like they SAY they live!

Or, you guy's on the right don't walk the walk, never will walk the walk, and don't know anybody who ever DID walk the walk, then I could understand your wishy washiness on the subject.

excon

To ME, and I dunno about you, a guy who walks the walk, WALKS it, and doesn't fall off. Those that fall off, NEVER walked it the first place. They FAKE it. In MY life experiences, people who WALK the WALK are COUNT-ON-ABLE!

Ok ex, which among us is perfect?

Wishy washy ? I have done nothing but condemn his actions . I have called them a deal breaker. What is wishy washy is the politicians and their supporters who say infidelity ,with all the damage to families and individuals "is only sex ...what's the big deal ? "

Hello tom:

Here's where I think you guys miss the mark... I don't think he EVER walked the walk. To ME, and I dunno about you, a guy who walks the walk, WALKS it, and doesn't fall off. Those that fall off, NEVER walked it the first place. They FAKE it. In MY life experiences, people who WALK the WALK are COUNT-ON-ABLE! Like O'Reilly said, his vows were principles until they weren't.

As galveston pointed out, because this guy didn't doesn't mean that there aren't people who walk the walk. But, when you point out THIS guy as one who did, but somehow lost his way, you discredit the people who actually DO have gumption to live like they SAY they live!!

Or, you guy's on the right don't walk the walk, never will walk the walk, and don't know anybody who ever DID walk the walk, then I could understand your wishy washiness on the subject.

excon

So... what you are saying is that a person who has moral ideals has to meet those ideals 100% of the time, with no errors in judgment whatsoever, or else he's a hypocrite. Whereas if someone has NO morals ideals and acts like a jerk 100% of the time (like Bill Clinton), he's cool, he's fine, there's nothing wrong with him, because he never really talked about any moral values and ideals anyway.

Yeah... that makes sense, in a twisted sort of way. But...

Personally, I'll take a party that TRIES to live up to certain moral ideals and sometimes fails than one that espouses no moral ideals whatsoever.

Which doesn't excuse Sanford. He DID fail to keep to his own stated morals. And he cannot be trusted to keep to them anymore. Trust must be earned, and Sanford has betrayed that trust. He's going to need to work very hard to regain that trust, assuming it can ever be done. But for now, possibly forever, that trust is GONE.

But should we throw out the ideals themselves because of the man who failed to hold himself to that standard? Are monogamy and the sacred bonds of marriage such a wrong-minded ideals that we need to get rid of them because Sanford failed in them? Should we stop espousing those ideals because Sanford failed in them? I don't think so.

Elliot

One other question, excon:

Until we knew that Sanford was a cheater, how were we supposed to have known that he was a cheater? He SEEMED to be a guy who walked the walk, and he certainly talked the talk. By what measure should we have known NOT to trust him until we found out that he actually betrayed our trust? And until that time came, why should we have NOT held him out as an example of what to do? He seemed to be doing it all right at that point.

You seem to be saying that we should'a known he was jerk. How?

Elliot

Ok ex, which among us is perfect?Hello again, Steve:

I'm far from perfect, but if I tell you that I'm going to DO something, you can take that to the bank. If you're intimating that there are no people like that, then I suggest you take it up with galveston. He seems to think there is. Frankly, I thought you were one.

Perfect?? Ain't nobody talking about "perfect". Keeping your commitments doesn't make you perfect. If makes you COUNT-ON-ABLE. Are you telling me that your wife can't COUNT on you to keep your vows??

excon

Do you think this would have been a non issue if before he left he said something like, Hey I am going to Argentina for a little alone time. I am putting the Lt. Governor in charge see you in a week. I think if he would have done that no one would have cared and we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

But should we throw out the ideals themselves because of the man who failed to hold himself to that standard?Hello again, El:

"Ideals"?? They're IDEALS now?? No they're not. They're RULES that you wingers SAY you live by, and you CONDEMN those who don't. That's why the word HYPOCRITE rears it's ugly head.

Democrats aren't that stupid. They have the same IDEALS, but they KNOW they're ideals. You guys don't. That's why you don't understand why your guys get such shabby treatment and the dems don't. You set yourself up for it, by pretending something is SO, when it clearly ISN'T so.

You guys do that a lot. I'm having a good time watching you self destruct, though. I HATE hypocrites.

excon

Hello again, El:

"Ideals"???? They're IDEALS now???? No they're not. They're RULES that you wingers SAY you live by, and you CONDEMN those who don't. That's why the word HYPOCRITE rears it's ugly head.

Democrats aren't that stupid. They have the same IDEALS, but they KNOW they're ideals. You guys don't. That's why you don't understand why your guys get such shabby treatment and the dems don't. You set yourself up for it, by pretending something is SO, when it clearly ISN'T so.

You guys do that a lot. I'm having a good time watching you self destruct, though. I HATE hypocrites.

excon

Huh? When did these become rules? Only in your mind. Certainly none of us have ever used that word or even intimated it. This is, in fact, the first time I have heard of breaking of marriage vows referred to as a violation of "rules".

Where do you get this stuff?

And will you please answer the question: should we throw out these ideals because someone didn't live up to them? Should we stop espousing them because of the actions of Mark Sanford? Should we copy the Liberals and HAVE no ideals on the issue of the sanctity of marriage so that if someone fails to live up to his marriage vows we can elect him president rather than condemn him for cheating? Is that what you are proposing?

Elliot

Huh? When did these become rules? Hello again, El:

I don't know. Let me ask you this? How successful do you think a book written by a rightwinger would be, with the title, "An ALMOST purpose driven life"?

I guess you don't know what that means... THIS is why the hypocrite word is used. You guys don't even know what YOU stand for, and you try to slither away when you get caught. The only people who are fooled by that are other hypocrites, I guess.

excon

I'm far from perfect, but if I tell you that I'm going to DO something, you can take that to the bank. If you're intimating that there are no people like that, then I suggest you take it up with galveston. He seems to think there is.

Ex, you said "a guy who walks the walk, WALKS it, and doesn't fall off." I'm sorry, but they do. ALL of them. What matters to me is how they pick themselves back up, because even though we ALL do fall short no one is beyond redemption. Yeah, there are many people out there with integrity but even they fall short somewhere. I just don't put my faith in politicians of any stripe, there are too many corrupting influences surrounding them.


Frankly, I thought you were one.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I know how many mistakes I make in spite of my principles.


Perfect?? Ain't nobody talking about "perfect". Keeping your commitments doesn't make you perfect. If makes you COUNT-ON-ABLE. Are you telling me that your wife can't COUNT on you to keep your vows??

It would take a perfect person to keep all of their commitments even if only to themselves. Sure it's reasonable to count on people - until they let me down - and I can't think of a single human that hasn't let me down in one way or another. Does that mean I can never count on them again? Absolutely not, because as I said what matters to me is how they pick themselves back up. If they have done so with integrity who am I to not let them off the hook?

because as I said what matters to me is how they pick themselves back up. If they have done so with integrity who am I to not let them off the hook?Hello again, Steve:

Bingo!

And, if your fellow rightwingers felt the same, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But, they DON'T. They call for their resignation. They say things, like if they ever find themselves in the same situation they say they'd resign - but when they DO find themselves in that position, they DON'T resign.

That is Hypocrisy personified!

I'm talking about wide stance guy, the Newtster, Ensign AND Sanford.

excon

Hello again, El:

I don't know. Let me ask you this? How successful do you think a book written by a rightwinger would be, with the title, "An ALMOST purpose driven life"?

Not sure what this has to do with the price of tea in China, but I'm sure that it means something to you. Having a purpose in life and trying to live up to that purpose and failing to do so is a case of breaking the "rules"?

What the heck are you talking about.


I guess you don't know what that means... THIS is why the hypocrite word is used. You guys don't even know what YOU stand for, and you try to slither away when you get caught. The only people who are fooled by that are other hypocrites, I guess.

excon

I know perfectly well what I stand for and what my ideals are. I also know that I fail to live up to them 100% of the time because I'm human.

But again, does the fact that I fail to live up to them 100% of the time mean that I should no longer hold those values? Are the values themselves wrong? Is espousing those values and failing to live up to the 100% of the time hypocrisy? Or is it human failure? You have still NOT addressed this question. You have continued to point out the hypocrisy of others. Others may not have noticed that you refuse to answer this question, but not me. I'm going to keep asking it till you answer it. It's a simple yes or no question. Are the values themselves bad because some people cannot or refuse to live up to them? Yes or no?

On the issue of hypocricy: Who is the true hypocrite, excon? The one who has values and fails them sometimes and tries to do better next time and holds others to those same values knowing that they too will sometimes fail? Or is it the one who holds others up to a standard that he himself doesn't espouse and ridicules them for failing in those values he doesn't even pretend to hold himself to?

I think the latter is MUCH more hypocritical.

Elliot

What the heck are you talking about.

I know perfectly well what I stand for and what my ideals are. I also know that I fail to live up to them 100% of the time because I'm human.Hello El:

Couple things. You appear to be saying that there are no rules in life, only ideals. That doesn't sound very right wing to me.

Actually, I think you know perfectly well what I'm talking about. Right wing people are more rigid than the real people are. Now, I'm learning from you that that rigidity comes from IDEALS, and not rules??

I don't know who you think you're kidding. If you think the guy who wrote the book, "A Purpose Driven Life" was talking about IDEALS, then you've missed the right wing boat. Plus, if your right wing political leaders felt so touchy feely about being human like you do, Rush Limprod wouldn't run 'em out of the party...

You know another way I know you're full of crap... If violating these IDEALS was really a human frailty we ALL suffer from, when people DO fall from grace like Clinton did, the righty's would be commiserating with him about his "humanism"...

But, NOOOOO, they called for his resignation, and said if they ever were in the same situation they would resign... But, they didn't... I don't know if you understand what hypocrisy is, but that's it.

And, I suppose you think I wouldn't notice. You don't really think I'm buying the crap you're selling.

Ideals... Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

Hello El:

Couple things. You appear to be saying that there are no rules in life, only ideals. That doesn't sound very right wing to me.

Not what I said. There ARE rules. There are also ideals. The two are not the same.


Actually, I think you know perfectly well what I'm talking about. Right wing people are more rigid than the real people are. Now, I'm learning from you that that rigidity comes from IDEALS, and not rules?? First of all, right wingers aren't real people? That's rather insulting.

Second, some people are rigid, others aren't. What does that have to do with either rules OR ideals. I happen to be a rigid person... not because of any rules OR ideals, but because I happen to have a rigid mindset.


I don't know who you think you're kidding. If you think the guy who wrote the book, "A Purpose Driven Life" was talking about IDEALS, then you've missed the right wing boat. Plus, if your right wing political leaders felt so touchy feely about being human like you do, Rush Limprod wouldn't run 'em out of the party... Rush hasn't run anyone out of the party. People have left the party because they felt like it or because it was politically expedient to do so. Rush has never (nor has any other Conservative) said that people should exit the Republican party. All they have done is try to make the party of conservatism stand up for the CONSERVATIVE VALUES of Ronald Reagan rather than compromise those values. They have no asked those who compromise those values to leave. Those who wish to compromise those values have left of their own free will.

And what "rules" do you believe were being espoused in A Purpose Driven Life? What rules? Rules for what? I think you are confusing rules and ideals. One is enforcable by a governing body, the other is an internal set of standards that we live by to the best of our ability. Which of these is being talked about in A Purpose Driven Life?


You know another way I know you're full of crap... If violating these IDEALS was really a human frailty we ALL suffer from, when people DO fall from grace like Clinton did, the righty's would be commiserating with him about his "humanism"...

But, NOOOOO, they called for his resignation, and said if they ever were in the same situation they would resign... But, they didn't... I don't know if you understand what hypocrisy is, but that's it.We called for his resignation not because he had sex with Monica Lewinsky. Oh, that alone would have cost him politically, sure, but wasn't worthy of calling for his impeachment. Even if it wasn't the first time it had happened. No, the reason he was impeached was that he LIED about it, refused to own up to it, and never took responsibility for it, even when it was obvious that he'd done it. He didn't even catch too much heck from Hillary, because she was interested in becoming a political figure herself and was willing to compromise on her own standards for that goal.

Contrast that with Sanford, who has admitted what he did, has resigned some of his political positions (including chairmanship of the RGA), and will never sit in the White House as President. He will likely lose his governorship in the next election. He is NOT hiding from his consequences.

THAT is where he differs from BJ Clinton. Sanford failed to live up to his stated ideals, will suffer the consequences of that fact. BJ Clinton has never faced up to actions and never will. THAT is why he was impeached.


And, I suppose you think I wouldn't notice. You don't really think I'm buying the crap you're selling.

Ideals... Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

exconBelieve what you will, the facts are facts.


And you still haven't answered the question. Despite all your talk about "rules" and "ideals", you have refused to answer a simple question. Do you believe that because Mark Sanford failed to live up to those ideals that the ideals themselves have no value?

Elliot

Democrats aren't that stupid. They have the same IDEALS, but they KNOW they're ideals. You guys don't. That's why you don't understand why your guys get such shabby treatment and the dems don't. You set yourself up for it, by pretending something is SO, when it clearly ISN'T so.


I'm talking about wide stance guy, the Newtster, Ensign AND Sanford.


You can add Eliot Spitzer ,John Edwards ,and former Jersey Guv Jim McGreedy . All of them came down from their pedestal after their infidelity and dalliances became public.

Nobody, as far as I can tell, said that their behavior was understandable or not a matter of public concern because their indiscretions were sexual in nature. One wonders how Bill Clinton would have fared in such a political climate. Certainly this isn't the same Democrat party you remember .

Not what I said. There ARE rules. There are also ideals. The two are not the same.

No, the reason he was impeached was that he LIED about it... Contrast that with Sanford, who has admitted what he did,Hello again, El:

So they're rules when judging the other guy, but ideals when judging your own. I understand.

Let me see. You want me to contrast the LIES Sanford told to his wife, his staff, his children and the voters of South Carolina to Clintons'. Okee doakee... Like Clinton, he LIED till he got caught!

Let me see, Contrast the lies Newt told, by calling for Clinton's impeachment all the while screwing someone NOT his wife?? Yup. HE LIED! Ensign - LIAR. Wide stance guy - LIAR!

Yeah, when you're trying to slip and slide your way around stuff, then only SOME LIES count... You should have stopped when you were ahead.

excon

Leave it to Lurch to make a bad Palin joke out of this. John Kerry said “Too bad, if a governor had to go missing it couldn't have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin.''

Actually Gov. Palin is on her way to an undisclosed "overseas" location to visit deployed Alaska National Guard troops.
Alaska Politics Blog : Palin leaves country for troop visit | adn.com (http://community.adn.com/node/142003)
Lurch put his size 22 " in his mouth again.

You can add Eliot Spitzer ,John Edwards ,and former Jersey Guv Jim McGreedy . All of them came down from their pedestal after their infidelity and dalliances became public. Hello again, tom:

Were it NOT for the air of moral superiority the Republicans wrap themselves in, the dalliances would, in fact, be the same...

But, because of that hypocrisy, the dalliances AREN'T the same. Not even close.

excon

Hello again, Righty's:

So, I'm getting that you, as a group, DENY that you hold yourselves out as being morally superior to those who don't accept your "family values"?

If that's so, then I've completely missed your message over the last decade or so. But, ain't missed nothing, have I?

excon

Hello again, tom:

Were it NOT for the air of moral superiority the Republicans wrap themselves in, the dalliances would, in fact, be the same...

But, because of that hypocrisy, the dalliances AREN'T the same. Not even close.

If we want to discuss an "air of moral superiority" let's discuss the left and the difference between their claims to the standard bearers of tolerance, diversity, equality, etc. and their behavior on those issues (see Palin and the lack of ANY women's groups coming to her defense for instance).

But this goes back to my original post in that I, being a conservative, would rather risk a fall than lower the moral bar to be more mediocre. These Democrat dalliances are not hypocritical only because their standards are so low. That's not a good thing, ex.

Hello again, Righty's:

So, I'm getting that you, as a group, DENY that you hold yourselves out as being morally superior to those who don't accept your "family values"?

If that's so, then I've completely missed your message over the last decade or so. But, ain't missed nothing, have I?

I don't hold myself to be morally superior to anyone. I do hold that many of our standards ARE morally superior. It isn't the standard that's deficient, it's the fallible humans trying to live up to those standards that are deficient.

Speech why do women's groups need to help Palin out? Did I miss something besides the stupid joke about Palin's 18year old daughter and A-Rod?

Speech why do women's groups need to help Palin out? Did i miss something besides the stupid joke about Palin's 18year old daughter and A-Rod?

OK, Spit, so you don't get why women's rights groups that purport to be defenders of equality, conquerors of sexism and oppression should speak out on behalf of this woman taking her place amidst the male chauvinist political machine against all the attacks, why have none of them spoken out against Obama's pledge to be tolerant of the oppression of Muslim women?

It isn't the standard that's deficient, it's the fallible humans trying to live up to those standards that are deficient.Hello again, Steve:

Then I guess we're back to square one, where you sound all squishy and forgiving... Your leaders, however, ain't so squishy and forgiving. If that were so, then this post would have run out of gas long ago...

But it DIDN'T. That COULD be because your leaders were doing exactly what Clinton was doing, WHILE they were badmouthing him. They WEREN'T commiserating with him on his "humanness", as you would have had them do, or you seem to think they did. NOOOOO! They didn't do that. Not even close!! If your party were more like YOU, Steve, I'd like it a whole lot better. But, it ain't.

You didn't think Clinton should have been strung up because of one little bj, and one little lie, did you? Nahhh.. You were being forgiving...

excon

I really can't speak for women's groups. But I would Imagine women's groups do not defend Palin because she is against abortion. I could be wrong and please do not make this into an abortion discussion we have been down that road many times.

As for Obama well I don't know why they don't I am not apart of any women groups I guess you should find one of their boards and ask them yourself. Let me know what you find out.

Hello again, Steve:

Then I guess we're back to square one, where you sound all squishy and forgiving... Your leaders, however, ain't so squishy and forgiving. If that were so, then this post would have run out of gas long ago...

But it DIDN'T. That COULD be because your leaders were doing exactly what Clinton was doing, WHILE they were badmouthing him. They WEREN'T commiserating with him on his "humanness", as you would have had them do, or you seem to think they did. NOOOOO! They didn't do that. Not even close!! If your party were more like YOU, Steve, I'd like it a whole lot better. But, it ain't.

Since you're largely referring to Newt here...


"The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge," the former Georgia congressman said of Clinton's 1998 House impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. "I drew a line in my mind that said, 'Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept ... perjury in your highest officials (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17527506/)."

With Clinton it was never about the affair in my mind, it was the perjury. I never made it about sex, you guys did. If Newt were perjuring himself then he should have faced the same ordeal as Clinton because perjury DOES matter.

I really can't speak for womens groups. But I would Imagine womens groups do not defend Palin because she is against abortion. I could be wrong and please do not make this into an abortion discussion we have been down that road many times.

As for Obama well I don't know why they don't I am not apart of any women groups I guess you should find one of their boards and ask them yourself. Let me know what you find out.

On the first part you're right but that shouldn't matter, when it comes to a conservative woman it's about her being against abortion. When it comes to the defense of a liberal woman it's about her right to 'choose.' Palin exercised her right to choose didn't she?

As for the other part, I try to avoid mingling with feminists... it's hazardous to my health. :D

I am not saying the women's groups are right I am just guessing that is the reason they don't do it.

Fair enough Speech I avoid feminists as much as possible. Unfortunately for me my wife's side of the family are all feminists and are pretty much sexist also. Holidays are oh so much fun!!

If Newt were perjuring himself then he should have faced the same ordeal as Clinton because perjury DOES matter.Hello again, Steve:

I don't disagree with you, except that I don't distinguish between ordinary lies and perjury. Clinton is a scum bag for lying. So's Newt. So's Ensign. So's Sanford and the wide stance dude.

A liar, is a liar, is a liar.

excon

I am not saying the womens groups are right I am just guessing that is the reason they don't do it.

Fair enough Speech I avoid feminists as much as possible. unfortunately for me my wife's side of the family are all feminists and are pretty much sexist also. Holidays are oh so much fun!!!!!!!

Brother, you have my sympathies. :)

Hello again, Steve:

I don't disagree with you, except that I don't distinguish between ordinary lies and perjury. Clinton is a scum bag for lying. So's Newt. So's Ensign. So's Sanford and the wide stance dude.

A liar, is a liar, is a liar.

Yep, but one that knowingly lies to the judge is a criminal.

Hello again, tom:

Were it NOT for the air of moral superiority the Republicans wrap themselves in, the dalliances would, in fact, be the same...

But, because of that hypocrisy, the dalliances AREN'T the same. Not even close.



If that's the case then why have the Dems I mentioned suffered consequences for their acts ?

I'll answer that for you. We as a nation think that character and judgement is important in a leader .

I'll answer that for you. We as a nation think that character and judgement is important in a leader .Hello again, tom:

You DO?? No you don't. Apparently, your leader Rush Limprod thinks it's Obama fault!

Here's his take: "The best way to put it: He's trying to kill spirit. All this hope and change, he's trying to kill it .... This Sanford buisness, I gotta tell you, one of the first thoughts that crossed my mind ... What he did defies logic. This is more than being 180 degrees out of phase because of lust or love ... This is almost like, "I don't give a damn, the country's going to Hell in a handbasket, I just want out of here." He had just tried to fight the stimulus money coming to South Carolina. He didn't want any part of it; he lost the battle. He said, 'What the hell. I mean, the federal government's taking over -- what the hell, I want to enjoy life."

Yup, clearly Obama's fault. Can you guys get any sillier? Maybe.

excon

Do I get to decide who your leaders are too ?

do I get to decide who your leaders are too ?Hello again, tom:

No you can't. I've pre-empted you by choosing Keith Olbermann as my leader and I'll follow him anywhere.

excon

Hello again, El:

So they're rules when judging the other guy, but ideals when judging your own. I understand.

That's not what I said or even intimated. I judge Mark Sanderson based on his failure to live up to his moral ideals. I judge the guys on the right for not having any ideals to begin with, on the one hand, and for hypocritically judging those on the right based on ideals they don't even believe in, on the other. I have never mentioned rules vis-à-vis marital vows.

You are making it up, and I challenge you to show a single time I have EVER talked about marital vows as a matter of rules. I never said it, and when you say I did, you are lying.


Let me see. You want me to contrast the LIES Sanford told to his wife, his staff, his children and the voters of South Carolina to Clintons'. Okee doakee... Like Clinton, he LIED till he got caught!

Unlike Sanford, Clinton lied well after he was caught. He continued lying WHILE UNDER OATH, which is a criminal offense, not just a moral failure.


Let me see, Contrast the lies Newt told, by calling for Clinton's impeachment all the while screwing someone NOT his wife?? Yup. HE LIED! Ensign - LIAR. Wide stance guy - LIAR!

Have you ever heard me defend any of these guys? Even once? I challenge you again to show where I defended the actions of any of these people's marital and sexual misconduct. You won't find it because it never happened. I have defended their positions on OTHER ISSUES, especially in the case of Newt who tends to be right in a variety of topics and a darn good speculative fiction writer. But I have never tried to defend their actions regarding sexual misconduct, and have in fact condemned their actions.

So what is it you are accusing me of? Holding them to a different standard that I hold Democrats? Bull$h!t!! It never happened.

Nor have I ever said that Democrats who were having affairs were breaking any laws or rules. What I have said is that they are immoral and untrustworthy. So are Republicans who do it.

The only one trying to draw a distinction between Dems and Reps on this issue is you.


Yeah, when you're trying to slip and slide your way around stuff, then only SOME LIES count... You should have stopped when you were ahead.

excon

I'm still ahead. I'm just so far ahead that you can't even see how far behind you are.

When Newt lied, he was wrong to do so. When Ensign lied he was wrong to do so. When Larry Craig lied he was wrong to do so. When they performed sexual acts outside the bounds of marriage, they were wrong to do so, especially since they purportedly support the concepts of monogamy and family values.

But when Bill Clinton lied, it was under oath. That made it ILLEGAL as well as just wrong. That's the difference.

Furthermore, the Democrats are to be frowned upon for not even having the values of monogamy and family. And when they then turn around and use family values to condemn others, while at the same time looking down at those family values themselves, they are hypocrites.

And you STILL can't manage to answer a simple question. You continue to dance around it. What are you afraid of in answering this simple question?

Is the fact that Mark Sanford, or Newt, or Craig, or Ensign, or anyone else, has failed to live up to the ideals of family values a reason to abandon those family values? Does failure to live up to an ideal constitute a reason to abandon that ideal?

Why is this question so tough to answer?

Elliot

Furthermore, the Democrats are to be frowned upon for not even having the values of monogamy and family.Who says they don't?

Furthermore, the Democrats are to be frowned upon for not even having the values of monogamy and family.
Who says they don't?Hello NK:

It's interesting... Elliot posts long and hard about how the right DOESN'T claim to be morally superior. But, then he slips up and let's the cat out of the bag.

excon

Who says they don't?

Uhhhh... THEY DO!! Every time they say that Republicans are to be ridiculed as hypocrites because they have these values and fail to live up to them, they are also saying that they don't have those values and can't be called hypocrites when they do the same things.

This idea is then perpetuated in the media, when the MSM sends people to Mark Sanford's girlfriends home in Argentina to "investigate" before Sanford's press conference was even over, while at the same time continuing to ignore the extramarital affair of John Edwards during his wife's cancer treatments, something which has STILL never been reported on by the MSM.

The Sanford affair has gotten more press in one week than the Edwards affair has gotten in three years... supposedly because Sanford is a proponent of "family values" but Edwards is not. Or at least that is the argument they are making.

So it is THE DEMS themselves who have said it.

Elliot

Sorry I don't follow your logic.

Hello NK:

It's interesting... Elliot posts long and hard about how the right DOESN'T claim to be morally superior. But, then he slips up and let's the cat out of the bag.

excon

Actually, what I have been saying is that Republicans ARE morally superior because they have superior values. What I have also been saying is that Democrats are morally inferior because they are TRUE hypocrites who hold others to values that they don't hold for themselves and that they actively downplay. And finally, I said that all those who fail to live up to their marriage vows are equally contemptible to me, whether they are Dems or Reps. I hold BOTH to the same standards.

And excon, you continue to avoid the very simple question. Does a failure to uphold ideals and values mean that the values themselves should be rejected?

Elliot

Sorry I don't follow your logic.

I know.

And excon, you continue to avoid the very simple question. Does a failure to uphold ideals and values mean that the values themselves should be rejected?
Hello again, El:

You make it very hard because you keep moving the target. First they're values... then they're ideals... Let's just call 'em goals.

But, the part that you don't get, is that when you say YOUR side HAS these values, ideals, goals, or whatever, and the other side DOESN'T, you guys become sitting ducks. You become poster boys for the word Hypocrite!

But, you're NOT going to come down from your holier than thou stance. I know it, and YOU know it. Fine! So, stop complaining when we take a shot at one of the VERY EASY DUCKS!

There IS a way to solve all this, you know. You COULD, bite your tongue, and admit that OTHER people besides your holier than thou selves, DO have a value or two... But, I'm afraid that your politics are TOO ingrained with your moral superiority for you to make such an admission.

excon

2 cases back in 1983 both involved Congressmen who were messing around with underaged staffers.

Republican Dan Crane slept with female staffers and was drummed out of Congress.

Dem. Gerry Studds was doing it to underaged male staffers . He told Congress to kiss his butt and was reelected a number of times.

Call me a hypocrite but I prefer the standards of accountability that the Republicans try to live by because it extends well beyond issues of sex .

You don't think so ? Congressman William Jefferson was reelected and won another Dem primary after all of his corruption was revealed.

Keith Olberman ? Well since you brought it up... KarmaBites1

Hello again, tom:

No you can't. I've pre-empted you by choosing Keith Olbermann as my leader and I'll follow him anywhere.

excon

You've chosen a fine leader (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/24/746547/-OlbermannPiece-of-CrapRush-Jr.). :D

It's no use Elliot. The lefties demonstrate time after time by both word and deed that they have no firmly held values on morals or anything else. They support whatever their whim of the moment is. Some people just will not see it.

What I find irritating here is that the tone of some posters reveals that they think the church has a monoply on hypocrisy. The church isn't even in the same league with politics on that subject.

Hello again, gal;

For starters, torture is not a family value I support. You do. In fact, it's inhumane, IMMORAL and it just ain't right.

That's where I'll end it too. WHO has WHAT morals is a no brainer.

excon

Hello again, gal:

Nahhh. I'll go on.

You support keeping civil rights from a group of your fellow citizens. I don't. Preventing people from enjoying the same rights you have, is IMMORAL, indecent, and just plain wrong.

WHO has WHAT morals is becoming abundantly clear.

excon

Hello again, gal:

I don't support pre-emptive war. You do. Invading a country that wasn't a threat to us killed a lot of innocent people, including more than 4,000 of our own men and women. It is an IMMORAL war, and it was the wrong thing to do.

Frankly, your morals don't seem to measure up.

excon

http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/calvin-and-hobbes-relativism.gif

Uh Tom, that doesn't really support your views. LOL!

Uh Tom, that doesn't really support your views. LOL!

NK, do you just enjoy the taste of your foot?

http://imgsrv.gocomics.com/dim/?fh=8381ea49fc86a2efeab02d2be7ca095e&w=898.5

Apparently a lot of people are getting their theology from the comic strips these days.

Remember, if you want good clean oats, you have to pay the price for them. If, however you can be satisfied with oats that have been through the horse, that comes cheaper.

Hello again, gal;

For starters, torture is not a family value I support. You do. In fact, it's inhumane, IMMORAL and it just ain't right.

That's where I'll end it too. WHO has WHAT morals is a no brainer.

excon

Your and my ideas of torture are just too far apart for us to ever agree on this.

Hello again, gal:

Nahhh. I'll go on.

You support keeping civil rights from a group of your fellow citizens. I don't. Preventing people from enjoying the same rights you have, is IMMORAL, indecent, and just plain wrong.

WHO has WHAT morals is becoming abundantly clear.

excon

If people insist on embracing abomination, that is their business. I just disagree with changing the definition of marriage that has endured for aboiut 6,000 years, that's all.

Hello again, gal:

I don't support pre-emptive war. You do. Invading a country that wasn't a threat to us killed a lot of innocent people, including more than 4,000 of our own men and women. It is an IMMORAL war, and it was the wrong thing to do.

Frankly, your morals don't seem to measure up.

excon

Muslim extremists have been at war with the rest of the world for a millennium off and on. They recognize no national boundaries, and this is just the latest flare up.

We were attacked, and have been fighting these people in Afghanistan, and yes, Iraq ever since. If there was no connection between them and Iraq, then why are we fighting them there?

But you are probably right about one thing. Saddam knew how to deal with them. He simply slaughtered them, along with gays and anyone else he didn't like.

Wow! Three shots in a row! I must have hit a nerve.