NCclimber

What do irrelevant Old Testament "laws" have to do with modern day morality in America?

Wow. The Kerry situation was nothing more than an embarassing gaffe, that ran out of steam as soon as Kerry made a decent apology. The supposed "Culture of Corruption" is a problem that isn't just going to go away. It needs to be addressed. Do you really think it was pure coincidence that the Dems dropped this issue right after their own suspect practices started getting attention?

How about a story to back this up???

No one said the "right wing media" didn't cover their speeches. My point (that some seemed to miss) is that when the Abramhoff scandal first broke, leading Democrats were talking about it every chance they got. THEY WERE ALL OVER THE MEDIA!!! Once their own dirty laundry started showing up, the issue became a non-issue.

Please reread with out the right wing filter of rose colored glasses. The right is the one who has been riding one big assed high horse... they have fallen off. The right set themselves up for that fall. But now they seem to be supporting hypocrisy in all its myriad forms.. from the President who jokes around in church during the National Prayer service whiole the rest of the congregation is lifting up their voices to the Lord ( kinda makes me think he follows the same group of thought there that was denigrating evangelicals behind their backs).... right on down to the protector of children Rep Foley....hmm I wonder if he was on those White House conference calls to Haggard. I hold those I vote for to the standard that what is right is right.... and what is legal..I do give them wiggle room....and they had best conform to that... or I will vote for someone who will. Remember... if you live in a glass house.. dont throw geological hand samples at the glass walls. Did you actually address or refute any of what I wrote? It's hard to tell.

I fully agree and think if they do not follow what is acceptable in our society.. then they need to be gotten rid of.... BUT.. dredging up 20 to 30 year old shit to try to whitewash your selves of the same shit that is currently flowing is a pretty bad move. More currently, Pelosi, Reid, et al couldn't get enough coverage to talk about the "Culture of Corruption". Oddly, the issue practically disappeared once they own indiscrections were exposed. Here are a couple of other slimes who were barely noticed. Jim Traficant (D-OH) Robert Torricelli (D-NJ)

And what laws would those be? Terri Schiavo, abortion, stem cell research Tattoos (some states), Porn, sex toys, (OK) Alcohol (Utah)... The post you quoted referenced our federal government (I assume). Which gov't are you talking about?

The link you posted makes no mention of the Kyoto treaties or the UN. The book does. Maybe you'll post the proof when you get it.

So, what you're saying is reprehensible behavior, by a national politician is really no one's business, unless they hold themselves up as a paragon of virtue. Immoral or unseemly behavior is okay for everyone, except those who condemn those actions? It's okay to bang 17 year old girls (and boys), as long as you haven't pushed legislation against it. Gay prostitution in your home? Not a problem, as long as you never spoke against it. And people think that whole conversation about declining values and moral decay is being driven by just the ultra-conservatives.

But the reality is.. that most of the people who support the ban on a gay marriage do so on their basis of hatred for gays... Do you really beleive most of those same people would support some form of civil union???? Would it surprise you that approximately 1/3rd of Americans favor gay marriage, but over 1/2 of Americans support civil unions? That's over a fifty percent increase. Additionally, 25% of those opposed to gay marriage, are not opposed to civil unions. If you can figure out why there is a significant difference of opinion between gay marriage and civil unions, you might be able to see that this is much more than a simple, back and white, good/bad, all or nothing situation.

The link you posted makes no mention of the Kyoto treaties or the UN.

It certainly does. Now, do you think the spending habits of the populations of all the industrialized (and those that want to be industrialized) nations might have teensy affect on the manufacturability, distribution, and even price, of fuels in this little world of ours? I'm a big fan of the whole, wildly crazy concept, that 5-6 billion consumers might just have more effect on the world economy than 23 well connected individuals of any influence or personal wealth - Especially in countries with very large populations of individuals with widely diverse social and political and economic motivations. call me crazy Market forces effecting prices? That's just crazy talk.

Gee you mean this has NO bearing on the bottom line of the oil companies??? Whether or not the oil companies want a Republican controlled Congress has no bearing on their ability to cause worldwide prices to drop 25 per cent.

I thought it was the Shriners, or the Freemasons, or the Knights of Templar...who are we to blame? Let's ask Mel Gibson.

I want some of what you are smokin....... If you really think that the sudden drop in price these past few months has nothing to do with the current administration of oil barons, then I have some great swampland to sell ya. Few months? More like 1 month, maybe 5 weeks. NY Crude peaked on 7/14 and made a new low last week on 10/31. That's 3 & 1/2 months. This whole premise that US oil companies could cause worldwide prices to drop 25%, in a few months is absurd. In the same period that crude made this historic drop, the US dollar has remained relatively unchanged against other major currencies, which means the rest of the major oil consumers have enjoyed the same drop in prices. And lets not overlook the OPEC members that would need to co-operate in such an effort. Buying into the premise that US oil companies are tanking crude prices, to impact a mid-term election, takes a particularly narrow focus. Conspiracy theorists. They are entertaining.

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.

http://www.factcheck.org/article451.html

Seems like the best way to refute biased tripe is with a more neutral, more objective, less biased source, instead of with an equally extremist one. What's that saying about light being the best disinfectant?

You asked for an example. I provided one. It should easy enough to google.

I asked who he flipped off. Your reply gives me the feeling you can't answer the question.

Go on believing what you will.

When has President Bush flipped anyone off? I've seen the pics, but has anyone shown these gesturesl targeted anyone? If so, who?

How about the attack on Congresswoman Nancy Johnson (R), running for re-election in Connecticut’s 5th district?

Why the last minute blindside?

Go on believing what you will.