Good old Republican family values

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Which, I would think, would be QUITE important to a REVVVVVVrend........ but then again, maybe not... he *is* a Democrat, after all....

And that's the point, you have established a double standard of expectations, then cry when we hold you and yours to a different standard. The fraud we know of as the Republican Party is being exposed.

Actually, no... I complain when you call for Republicans to be punished for infractions that Democrats get off scot-free for... THAT is true hypocrisy.

*note (since reading isn't fundamental anymore): I'm not advocating that this is true in this instance...

And which are these? Certain, "infractions" are those of criminal in nature, others are those that are moral in nature and not criminal. The ones I advocate the tidy-righty be slammed for are the latter ones. They advocate this moal cleansing, then violate those standards at now a higher rate than the Dems ever have.

I'm not advocating immunity from CRIMES for the Dems, just violations of moral law as prescribed by the right. Get it? Dem legislators or executives can have all the kinks they want, whereas the right better not as they set this pseudo high-bar, which is what earns them the moral vote and that is what is going to revoke that moral vote.

[billvon 3,120]

>If it's all valid, why the last minute blindside?

From a statement today from his church:

"Our investigation and Pastor Haggard's public statements have proven without a doubt that he has committed sexually immoral conduct."

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>If it's all valid, why the last minute blindside?

From a statement today from his church:

"Our investigation and Pastor Haggard's public statements have proven without a doubt that he has committed sexually immoral conduct."

[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061105/ap_on_re_us/haggard_sex_allegations_107

To support that the good evangelist even admitted it.

NOW DON'T YOU FOLKS WHO DEFENDED HIM LIKE FOLEY FEEL RIDICULOUS?

Quote

Ousted evangelist confesses to followers

Ok so as he was condemning homosexuals to hell, he was smoking the boloney-poney, smokin crack. Who cares if it was great timing by the Dems, not that I think it was, but that doesn;t affect the truth: one of the leaders, the voices of the moral right is a hypocrit in the worst way.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

>If it's all valid, why the last minute blindside?

From a statement today from his church:

"Our investigation and Pastor Haggard's public statements have proven without a doubt that he has committed sexually immoral conduct."

More:

www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/05/haggard.allegations/index.html

"Family Values" - Bwaahahahah

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,120]

One statement from that stood out to me:

"There is part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I've been warring against it all of my adult life."

Which fits the pattern we were recently discussing - where the disgust one feels for one's own desires fosters a hatred of others displaying similar behavior. Coming to terms with one's own desires might help reduce the sort of self-hatred and dissonance people like this feel, but I fear that many churches violently reject any such acceptance as a sin.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

One statement from that stood out to me:

"There is part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I've been warring against it all of my adult life."

Which fits the pattern we were recently discussing - where the disgust one feels for one's own desires fosters a hatred of others displaying similar behavior. Coming to terms with one's own desires might help reduce the sort of self-hatred and dissonance people like this feel, but I fear that many churches violently reject any such acceptance as a sin.

This leads to, "Thou protests too loudly, which is really a shout at oneself rather than a lecture/sermon.

The church refuses the obvious: We are animals and governed by natural law before man's law or theological laws.

[billvon 3,120]

Interesting take on this, from someone named JB on another forum:

------------------
If you start from the assumption that homosexuality is sinful, and you know that you have deep and powerful feelings of attraction to persons of the same sex, how can you not believe that the Devil himself is perpetually waiting outside your doorstep? How can you not fear that the country is on the verge of sliding into moral bankruptcy, for you are always on the brink yourself. And indeed, in Haggard's case, you have repeatedly fallen, and you can't stop falling.

Many progressives have never quite understood why the most vehement religious opponents of homosexuality view it as such a threat. I myself have always assumed that it is because religious opponents are devoted to the preservation of traditional gender roles, which sustain a male/female hierarchy. But the Ted Haggard story suggests a different reason-- at least for that segment of religious opponents who, like a significant proportion of the population generally, share same-sex or bisexual orientations and desires.

Viewed from Ted Haggard's perspective-- a man who, despite his shame and guilt, is attracted to other men-- gay marriage and the gay lifestyle really are a threat to heterosexual relationships and heterosexual marriage. That is because they are a threat to his heterosexual identity and his heterosexual marriage. He knows the Devil is always tracking him, waiting for him to slip up. That is because he conceptualizes his sexual desires as sin and as alienation from God, and not as the expressions of something that might actually become valuable to him if accepted them as part of himself. If Haggard accepted that he was bi-sexual or even gay, and that it was morally permissible to be either of these things, he would have to change his understandings of his own desires and what they mean. He would have to view himself and his relationship to God very differently. But he has not been able to accept these things, because he is closeted from himself. That is why he has been a vocal opponent of people he has a great deal in common with.

I don't know how many of the fiercest opponents of gay rights in the religious community have some same-sex desires. I only know that it makes perfect sense that among the very religious those with same-sex desires will be among the most vehement denouncers of gays. It is not simply hypocrisy-- it is also lack of self-knowledge.
---------------------------------------

[Lucky... 0]

That's a good write. At the end I found myself thinking of the way many people characterize most prosecutorial case building: from the top-down.

Cops and prosecutors often view a crime, then establish who they think probably did it and then look for evidence that might link that person to the crime. Building a case from the bottom-up would be to examine all evidence and then look at a possible list of suspects and see where the evidence best fits.

Anyway, I find myself looking at Haggert thinking he's a person who's established his ideologies first and then builds his life arond that set of rules to satisfy the protocol. It's likely his parents were the same as he's pretending to be, very theological, so he had his life established for him. Only problem is that he wasn't genetically engineered that way. How many very gay people are married and figure it (they're gay) out after 3 kids and 10 years? The common joke is that they're married to disguise their gayness. Truth is that they didn't know what life had in store for them.

I still like the school of thought that renders gay people as sexual deviants and that it is all choice. I'm sure there are freaks out there, but for the most part they don't have a choice OR they're masochistic as their, "choice" will cost them everything in most cases, perhaps their life.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I'm not advocating immunity from CRIMES for the Dems, just violations of moral law as prescribed by the right. Get it? Dem legislators or executives can have all the kinks they want, whereas the right better not as they set this pseudo high-bar, which is what earns them the moral vote and that is what is going to revoke that moral vote.

Well, at least you actually admitted you're a hypocrite about it... appreciate the honesty.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

I'm not advocating immunity from CRIMES for the Dems, just violations of moral law as prescribed by the right. Get it? Dem legislators or executives can have all the kinks they want, whereas the right better not as they set this pseudo high-bar, which is what earns them the moral vote and that is what is going to revoke that moral vote.

Well, at least you actually admitted you're a hypocrite about it... appreciate the honesty.

Nice spin there. However, you need to look up the meaning of hypocrite.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm not advocating immunity from CRIMES for the Dems, just violations of moral law as prescribed by the right. Get it? Dem legislators or executives can have all the kinks they want, whereas the right better not as they set this pseudo high-bar, which is what earns them the moral vote and that is what is going to revoke that moral vote.

Well, at least you actually admitted you're a hypocrite about it... appreciate the honesty.

Nice spin there. However, you need to look up the meaning of hypocrite.

Hypocrisy: The Democrat view that Stubbs was a-ok with actually having sex with an underage page, because he wasn't talking against it.... while Foley should be burnt at the stake for supposedly explicit emails to a former page...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm not advocating immunity from CRIMES for the Dems, just violations of moral law as prescribed by the right. Get it? Dem legislators or executives can have all the kinks they want, whereas the right better not as they set this pseudo high-bar, which is what earns them the moral vote and that is what is going to revoke that moral vote.

Well, at least you actually admitted you're a hypocrite about it... appreciate the honesty.

Nice spin there. However, you need to look up the meaning of hypocrite.

Hypocrisy: The Democrat view that Stubbs was a-ok with actually having sex with an underage page, because he wasn't talking against it.... while Foley should be burnt at the stake for supposedly explicit emails to a former page...

Was Stubbs the leader of the congressional caucus to PROTECT children?

Hypocrisy is about not practising what you preach. Foley and Haggard both qualify. Bush also qualifies, for preaching that the government doesn't tap citizens's phones without a warrant, while knowing full well that he authorized it.

Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, virtues and feelings that one does not truly possess. The word derives from the late Latin hypocrisis and Greek hupokrisis both meaning play-acting or pretence. The word is arguably derived from hypo- meaning small, + krinein meaning to decide/to dispute. A classic example of a hypocritical act is to denounce another for carrying out some action whilst carrying out the same action oneself.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

The Dems disqualified themselves from being able to say ANYTHING about Foley when they didn't immediately remove Stubbs Studds from office and bar him - THAT'S my line on it, regardless of what committee positions either person may have held.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

The Dems disqualified themselves from being able to say ANYTHING about Foley when they didn't immediately remove Stubbs Studds from office and bar him - THAT'S my line on it, regardless of what committee positions either person may have held.

From FOX
www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Nov03/0,4670,HaggardPolitics,00.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

It seems like were talking about two different matters of hypocrisy, here.

On the one hand, we have Republican politicians that have held themselves up as beacons of morality, telling the masses what they think is (and is not) morally acceptable behavior. A number of them have been shown to be guilty of the transgressions they condemn. They are clearly hypocrits.

On the other hand, we have a number of liberals, who expouse the view that what a person does on their own time is really no one's business. This type of rationale has been used to diminish the relevance of a number of Democrat scandals over the years. It's basically - "Who cares? Let's just judge him on his legislative record. All that other stuff doesn't matter!"

When the people of this latter group, who preach a live and let live attitude, but quickly condemn the private behavior of those they oppose, it gives the distinct impression they embrace their philosophy of tolerance only when it's advantageous. When it's to their disadvantage, which is when people really show if they are willing to walk their talk, they get up on their own soapbox and express their outrage, essentially behaving like the former group.

Seems like hypocrisy to me.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm not advocating immunity from CRIMES for the Dems, just violations of moral law as prescribed by the right. Get it? Dem legislators or executives can have all the kinks they want, whereas the right better not as they set this pseudo high-bar, which is what earns them the moral vote and that is what is going to revoke that moral vote.

Well, at least you actually admitted you're a hypocrite about it... appreciate the honesty.

No hypocrisy, just a well-deserved double-standard. When you yell, "FAGGOT" and you are caught being homosexual, you will be treated differently than if you don't denounce their lifestyles, do what you can to help their causes and AIDS relief. By "you" I'm speaking on a political level. That;snot hypocrisy, that's a real interpretation of how people perceive things.

How about this, what would you think if there was a city ballot being proposed so that either skateboard parks could be outlawed or a stock car track be removed as it is too busy or something like that. A hair salon owner pops up and claims it is too loud and dangerous and then a DZO and skydivers show up....... they BETTER NOT advocate the removal of it. The board would look very different upon the testimony of ecah group here. Would this be hypocrisy on the part of teh board? No, they would look at paradigm and the right to bitch. Throw in the variable that the DZO was before the board 3 months previously defending his business. Now who's the hypocrite?

So this is not hypocrisy on the part of Dems who support rights for all people, including gay people.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm not advocating immunity from CRIMES for the Dems, just violations of moral law as prescribed by the right. Get it? Dem legislators or executives can have all the kinks they want, whereas the right better not as they set this pseudo high-bar, which is what earns them the moral vote and that is what is going to revoke that moral vote.

Well, at least you actually admitted you're a hypocrite about it... appreciate the honesty.

Nice spin there. However, you need to look up the meaning of hypocrite.

Exactly, I would need to be a closet RW advocating immunity for my group before I would be hypocritical.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm not advocating immunity from CRIMES for the Dems, just violations of moral law as prescribed by the right. Get it? Dem legislators or executives can have all the kinks they want, whereas the right better not as they set this pseudo high-bar, which is what earns them the moral vote and that is what is going to revoke that moral vote.

Well, at least you actually admitted you're a hypocrite about it... appreciate the honesty.

Nice spin there. However, you need to look up the meaning of hypocrite.

Hypocrisy: The Democrat view that Stubbs was a-ok with actually having sex with an underage page, because he wasn't talking against it.... while Foley should be burnt at the stake for supposedly explicit emails to a former page...

I didn't "A-OK" it, I established that from the position of the right, they have no wiggle room. I never expressed any opinions on Stubbs - find one. I'm just operating from the side of teh Repubs buring moral violators at the stake, then being uncovered as one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

The Dems disqualified themselves from being able to say ANYTHING about Foley when they didn't immediately remove Stubbs Studds from office and bar him - THAT'S my line on it, regardless of what committee positions either person may have held.

So since the government has executed innocent people, jailed innocent people for life, they have no right to denounce murder and kidnapping?

Another point:

- Parties change, the Repubs advocated rights for blacks with the Emancipation Proclaimation. The Dems were awesome during WWII after Hoover and other Repubs fucked the handling of the economy in the 20's, then they got lame. Reagan/Bush/Bush fucked the economy worse than anyone could believe for the last 26 years, now people have realized it and are changing it.

Social rights/relief - People have figured out that the Repubs don't want everyone to have medical coverage, the Dems do. This was never an issue before 1980.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

It seems like were talking about two different matters of hypocrisy, here.

On the one hand, we have Republican politicians that have held themselves up as beacons of morality, telling the masses what they think is (and is not) morally acceptable behavior. A number of them have been shown to be guilty of the transgressions they condemn. They are clearly hypocrits.

On the other hand, we have a number of liberals, who expouse the view that what a person does on their own time is really no one's business. This type of rationale has been used to diminish the relevance of a number of Democrat scandals over the years. It's basically - "Who cares? Let's just judge him on his legislative record. All that other stuff doesn't matter!"

When the people of this latter group, who preach a live and let live attitude, but quickly condemn the private behavior of those they oppose, it gives the distinct impression they embrace their philosophy of tolerance only when it's advantageous. When it's to their disadvantage, which is when people really show if they are willing to walk their talk, they get up on their own soapbox and express their outrage, essentially behaving like the former group.

Seems like hypocrisy to me.

I see youyr interpretation,but the Dems aren't condoning their scandals (other than the Clinton scandal), they're calling out the Repubs for theirs.

Another point, if we judge legislators on their record, the Repubs lose too.

Quote

...it gives the distinct impression they embrace their philosophy of tolerance only when it's advantageous.

I think they preach tollerance to the tollerant, intollerance to the intollerant, this is the double-standard that I speak of.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The Dems disqualified themselves from being able to say ANYTHING about Foley when they didn't immediately remove Stubbs Studds from office and bar him - THAT'S my line on it, regardless of what committee positions either person may have held.

From FOX
www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Nov03/0,4670,HaggardPolitics,00.html

And he's resigned from his position... if he was a Democratic preacher (an oxymoron, I know), he'd be telling everyone that it's none of their business and getting applauded by his peers.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm not advocating immunity from CRIMES for the Dems, just violations of moral law as prescribed by the right. Get it? Dem legislators or executives can have all the kinks they want, whereas the right better not as they set this pseudo high-bar, which is what earns them the moral vote and that is what is going to revoke that moral vote.

Well, at least you actually admitted you're a hypocrite about it... appreciate the honesty.

No hypocrisy, just a well-deserved double-standard. When you yell, "FAGGOT" and you are caught being homosexual, you will be treated differently than if you don't denounce their lifestyles, do what you can to help their causes and AIDS relief. By "you" I'm speaking on a political level. That;snot hypocrisy, that's a real interpretation of how people perceive things.

How about this, what would you think if there was a city ballot being proposed so that either skateboard parks could be outlawed or a stock car track be removed as it is too busy or something like that. A hair salon owner pops up and claims it is too loud and dangerous and then a DZO and skydivers show up....... they BETTER NOT advocate the removal of it. The board would look very different upon the testimony of ecah group here. Would this be hypocrisy on the part of teh board? No, they would look at paradigm and the right to bitch. Throw in the variable that the DZO was before the board 3 months previously defending his business. Now who's the hypocrite?

So this is not hypocrisy on the part of Dems who support rights for all people, including gay people.

A double standard is hypocritical...but I'm done arguing it, as the Dems see nothing wrong with it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The Dems disqualified themselves from being able to say ANYTHING about Foley when they didn't immediately remove Stubbs Studds from office and bar him - THAT'S my line on it, regardless of what committee positions either person may have held.

From FOX
www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Nov03/0,4670,HaggardPolitics,00.html

And he's resigned from his position... if he was a Democratic preacher (an oxymoron, I know), he'd be telling everyone that it's none of their business and getting applauded by his peers.

Don't you remember Jesse "let me fool around" Jackson?

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The Dems disqualified themselves from being able to say ANYTHING about Foley when they didn't immediately remove Stubbs Studds from office and bar him - THAT'S my line on it, regardless of what committee positions either person may have held.

From FOX
www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Nov03/0,4670,HaggardPolitics,00.html

And he's resigned from his position... if he was a Democratic preacher (an oxymoron, I know), he'd be telling everyone that it's none of their business and getting applauded by his peers.

Don't you remember Jesse "let me fool around" Jackson?

So it's OK for the GOP to be hypocrites because Jess Jackson was just as bad.

Funny position to take from the party that puffs itself up as the guardian of our moral values.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,120]

>A double standard is hypocritical . . .

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It is not hypocritical for a gay man to have a gay relationship. It IS hypocritical for a priest who rails against the "sins of homosexuality" to have a gay relationship.

It is not hypocritical for a lifetime criminal, who believes that he is smarter than most people and can use that intelligence to make a dishonest living off them, to steal from a bank. (It may be wrong, but it's not hypocritical.) It IS hypocritical for a man who espouses honesty and trust to steal from the bank he works at.

It is not hypocritical for a skydiver to love skydiving and jump all the time. It is hypocritical for a DZO to jump regularly, then try to get another competing drop zone shut down by claiming "skydiving cannot be performed safely."

See any difference in any of those?