airdvr 210 #51 February 10, 2011 True. If Hill has forgiven him then maybe we should too.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #52 February 10, 2011 Quote>So a Democrat can cheat on his wife, get blow jobs, lie under oath etc. and that's OK. ?? You (and other conservatives) have kept up a steady stream of attacks against Clinton for over a decade now. If you've missed that you're being willfully blind. You completely missed the point by a mile in your rush to defend Clinton. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,584 #53 February 10, 2011 Quote I can't remember anyone running on the platform that they will be getting drunk while receiving blow jobs from interns in their office. I think Trapper John did in M*A*S*H once while running for chief surgeon Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #54 February 10, 2011 QuoteI don't think Republicans are the only ones who claim to support family values or some such wording. I can't remember anyone running on the platform that they will be getting drunk while receiving blow jobs from interns in their office. Well, you and I understand that because we are rational. So we get to have a good laugh at those who defend the indefensible because there's no hypocracy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #55 February 10, 2011 Quote Quote I can't remember anyone running on the platform that they will be getting drunk while receiving blow jobs from interns in their office. I think Trapper John did in M*A*S*H once while running for chief surgeon Wendy P. Well, he was replaced by a guy called BJ afterall...I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
michalm21 2 #56 February 10, 2011 Quote Well, you and I understand that because we are rational. Now, that's funny Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,584 #57 February 10, 2011 Talking about the indefensible, which is worst? 1. systematic coverup of a break-in funded by illegal political money 2. having an affair 3. lying about an affair under oath 4. starting a war based on inadequate information (there really was a lot of doubt on that one) These have all happened in my lifetime. To me, the attempt to use your power to pervert the system to your own end is the worst sin. The war in Iraq is BS, but it's not venal BS, it's stupid and destructive BS. Frankly, neither boffing an intern (even if she was a subordinate -- thanks for that viewpoint Lawrocket) nor lying about it is in the same ballpark to my way of thinking. Clinton was a sleaze, but he was an effective president. I'd rather have that than an ineffective honest man (Jimmy Carter anyone?). Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #58 February 10, 2011 Well, I think a President commiting maritial infidelity by getting a blowjob from an intern and then commiting perjury in a sexual harassment lawsuit is worse than a Congressman sending a picture of himself without a shirt on. I think both are wrong, and I don't think the lack of hypocracy excuses bad behavior in either case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,584 #59 February 10, 2011 I agree with you there. In addition, it sounds like the congressman's wife isn't nearly as accepting of "the facts of life" as Hillary was. Had he been a vocal "family values all the way" guy then yes, there would be the hypocrisy on top of it. And hypocrisy is bad -- it's proof positive that you really don't think the rules apply to you. Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #60 February 10, 2011 I'll bet you that Congressmans life is going to be a living hell for a while. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #61 February 11, 2011 Quotea President commiting maritial infidelity by getting a blowjob from an intern and then commiting perjury in a sexual harassment lawsuit. But he wasn't drunk when he did it. Ha. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #62 February 11, 2011 Quote Had he been a vocal "family values all the way" guy then yes, there would be the hypocrisy on top of it. And hypocrisy is bad -- it's proof positive that you really don't think the rules apply to you. Wendy P. Let me start by saying I get what you are saying. But what I don't get is when given a choice between a party of "try and occasionally fail" and "don't even bother trying" they vote for the "don't even bother to try" group. I point to the schools as an example. Do you really think less discipline and family values will fix the kids not graduating form school? Not all the "party of family values" politicians are closet gays or having affairs, despite what Amazon says. A good home, loving parents, and happy well disciplined kids are a good start to solving a lot of problems."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #63 February 11, 2011 >But what I don't get is when given a choice between a party of "try and >occasionally fail" and "don't even bother trying" they vote for the "don't >even bother to try" group. Because some people don't think the goal as stated is worthy. Would you vote for a politician who campaigned on a platform of raising taxes to cover expenditures (surely a responsible position) or would you rather vote for one who doesn't even bother to try? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #64 February 11, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote >I'm convinced. Good. Cause you'd look really silly claiming that the GOP hasn't been the "family values" party for decades. Oh, I thought being a hypocrite was something ascribed to an individual and that one could only be a hypocrite if they personally esposed family values. I hadn't realized you had taken it to the political party level to make a point. I'll try to remember that the next time we are talking about Democrats. Didn't bother to read the RNC literature, did you? Nope. I never got it. I guess they only send it to members. You seem to be pretty familiar with it though. Didnt get the memo? he knows more about every subject than anyone here and he says less about all same said subjects mysterious aint he"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #65 February 11, 2011 Quote Because some people don't think the goal as stated is worthy. I don't buy that. Are you honestly saying that the decline of the family unit and the effect that it is having on our kids, mainly their lack of discipline, inability to finish school, and teen pregnancy rate isn't a problem? What about 80% of the prison population coming from broken homes? Not a worthy goal? are you serious?"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #66 February 11, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Well, at least he was trying to meet a woman! Amazon is going to be pissed that you stole her line She does seem to have a hang up about politicians sex lives, doesn't she. What do you think? Fantasy or Phobia? Just love watching all the Moral Majority Family Values rePUBIClowns fail all the assclowns who keep voting for them because they wear their Moral Majority Family Values on their sleeves at the Gay Bars, toilet stalls, Appalachian Trail, C Street and local whore houses. And then the MORONS vote in yet another one for us to laugh at. HOLY SCHNIKES… talk about HOPEY CHANGEY BATMAN Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #67 February 11, 2011 >Are you honestly saying that the decline of the family unit and the effect >that it is having on our kids, mainly their lack of discipline, inability to >finish school, and teen pregnancy rate isn't a problem? Yes, it is definitely a problem. But some solutions don't work. A "family values" candidate that wants to outlaw gay marriage, and considers gays to be sick deviants? He will actually do more to _cause_ teen suicide, the breakup of families and a lack of familial support. A "family values" candidate who professes the values of a monogamous marriage, then trolls the Internet for young women he can send pictures of himself to? Might not be such an advocate of what makes families work. A "family values" candidate whose personal emails are revealed by a news media eager to embarrass people, and whose activities his wife and family support? That's a lot closer to what I consider family values. Now, let's compare two possible scenarios of what happened here. ========== Scenario 1. Family values candidate exposed! Rep. Christopher Lee resigned from office Wednesday just hours after a report claimed the married Republican congressman sent a shirtless photo of himself to a woman on Craigslist. The New York congressman formally submitted a resignation letter to House Speaker John Boehner. "It has been a tremendous honor to serve the people of Western New York. I regret the harm that my actions have caused my family, my staff and my constituents. I deeply and sincerely apologize to them all. I have made profound mistakes and I promise to work as hard as I can to seek their forgiveness," he said in a statement. =========== Scenario 2. Family-oriented candidate embarrassed by photos Rep. Christopher Lee said he was embarrassed by the publicity surrounding the recent release of a bare-chested photo of him that was sent to a 34 year old woman via an open email account. "It certainly wasn't something I wanted used to represent who I was; it's embarrassing to see that released in public, and I'm sorry if it caused anyone any heartburn," he said in a statement. "I promise to be more careful with my electronic communications in the future, and to refrain from such juvenile antics." His wife echoed his embarrassment. "It was to an old friend of ours that he's been corresponding with," she said in an interview late Wednesday. "She thought that picture was pretty funny; I'm sorry it caused such a scene. I'm happy she took it in the spirit it was intended." Lee credits his family for their support. "I was relieved when I received messages of support both from her family and mine as soon as the photos were revealed," he said in a press release. "I'm glad our friendship wasn't damaged by this unwanted attention from the media." ============= Same scenario, two very different situations. Which one would _you_ trust afterwards? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #68 February 11, 2011 Quote Yes, it is definitely a problem. But some solutions don't work. Agreed. We have had this conversation before and as I've said, putting single parents on government support isn't much of a solution either. Quote A "family values" candidate that wants to outlaw gay marriage, and considers gays to be sick deviants? He will actually do more to _cause_ teen suicide, the breakup of families and a lack of familial support. A "family values" candidate who professes the values of a monogamous marriage, then trolls the Internet for young women he can send pictures of himself to? Might not be such an advocate of what makes families work. A "family values" candidate whose personal emails are revealed by a news media eager to embarrass people, and whose activities his wife and family support? That's a lot closer to what I consider family values. No those are not "family values." And just like you posted earlier from wikipedia, not everyone sees these as family values either: Quote Conservative definitions Since 1980, the Republican Party has used the issue of family values to attract socially conservative voters. While family values remains a rather vague concept, social conservatives usually understand the term to include some combination of the following principles (also referenced in the 2004 Republican Party platform): * Promotion of "traditional marriage" and opposition to sex outside of conventional marriage, including pre-marital sex, adultery, polygamy, bestiality, and incest * Support for a roll back of aspects of feminism and support for a traditional role for women in the family. * Opposition to same-sex marriage * Support for traditional education and parental involvement in that education, including such things as vouchers for private, non-secular education. * Opposition to legalization of abortion and support for policies that instead encourage abstinence and adoption * Support for abstinence education exclusively regarding risks associated with early sexual activity such as teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases while not teaching such topics of sex education as human sexual behavior, safe sex and birth control * Support for policies that are said to protect children from obscenity and exploitation The above definitions are put on the right by the left to label everyone on the right as religious extremists. That is not the case. Good job taking the left wing talking points hook, line and sinker. For some of us, we just want to see people not start a family or raise kids until there are in a stable position in there lives and can provide for them. Unfortunately with the median income in this country at $40,000 a year, to own a home, car, have 2.5 kids and half a dog surrounded by a white picket fence, you will need to earn a little more than that. 2 parents helps. I don't care if they are straight, gay, what ever. Parental involvement in a child's life will do more than any government program. All some of us want is for people to not have kids until they are ready. To me heading down to the projects with a bunch of doctors are giving out free vasectomies is a hell of a better (and cheaper) option than supporting a bunch of single welfare moms that are raising a bunch of kids growing up thinking they live in MTV's "Jersey Shore" or "Skins." Between the welfare that raises them and the cost of prison to take care of them for the rest of their life, they are a drain on society. We need a lot less of that. The difference between you and me is I see "family values" as parental involvment with the kids and you see it as a right wing religous extemists point of view. You would forgive John Edwards because he doesn't think enough about the kids to mention them on the campaign trail so as to not be labeled a hypocrite and I see both people like Christopher Lee and and John Edwards in the same light. "D" or "R" be damned. I don't want either in congress."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #69 February 11, 2011 I'd vote for 'em! There'd be less wars if leaders got regular BJs. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #70 February 11, 2011 QuoteI'd vote for 'em! There'd be less wars if leaders got regular BJs. Bosnia wasn't a war? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #71 February 11, 2011 Quote His wife echoed his embarrassment. "It was to an old friend of ours that he's been corresponding with," she said in an interview late Wednesday. "She thought that picture was pretty funny; I'm sorry it caused such a scene. I'm happy she took it in the spirit it was intended." there's a whopper of a lie. If she really believed that, there would be no need for him to resign, would there? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #72 February 11, 2011 It was a war, but we didn't start it. Slobodan clearly needed some intern action. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #73 February 11, 2011 Um, I thought Bill made those quotes up to prove a point. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #74 February 11, 2011 >If she really believed that, there would be no need for him to resign, >would there? Ding ding ding! You got it! In scenario 2, there is no need for anyone to resign. Now, the candidate in case 2 would no doubt be shunned by the GOP. Letting her husband see a female friend? Being OK with him sending her topless pictures? Why, that's not very family oriented; that's saying it's ok to NOT RESPECT THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE! But overall I'd tend to trust the guy in the second scenario a lot more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #75 February 11, 2011 QuoteIt was a war, but we didn't start it. Slobodan clearly needed some intern action. Why? He wasn't any threat to the US. Obviously, blow jobs don't prevent wars. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
