[excon]

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

[spitvenom]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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."

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.

[speechlesstx]

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

[spitvenom]

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!!

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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. :)

[speechlesstx]

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.

[tomder55]

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 .

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

Do I get to decide who your leaders are too ?

[excon]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[NeedKarma]

Furthermore, the Democrats are to be frowned upon for not even having the values of monogamy and family.

Who says they don't?

[excon]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[NeedKarma]

Sorry I don't follow your logic.

[ETWolverine]

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

[ETWolverine]

Sorry I don't follow your logic.

I know.

[excon]

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