[ETWolverine]

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

[excon]

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

[spitvenom]

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.

[excon]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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?

[excon]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[excon]

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

[ETWolverine]

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.

excon

Believe 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

[tomder55]

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 .

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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
Lurch put his size 22 " in his mouth again.

[excon]

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

[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

[speechlesstx]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

[spitvenom]

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?

[speechlesstx]

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?