They are humans, not gods

[Inferno]

Watching my local news (im on the border of SC), I was appalled at the fact that our local news obtained excerpts of emails sent between the governor of SC and his lady friend in Argentina, and I was appalled by the fact that they read these private communications on air. This was stuff like from love stories and romance novels (not the freaky ones) and they were throwing this out on TV like its everyone's business.

THAT is going too far, wayy too far. Its okay to talk about "where he went" in the sense that he left the state and nobody knew. But to get into the details of his emails and put them on TV is completely unacceptable.

I agree with this totally. Who a person sleeps with is none of anyones business and that should not play on TV.

 

[Inferno]

Back to my issue with McCain it is not that he cheated. It is that he left his wife because she was no longer pristine for a beauty queen. He did this in plain view of the public. He even said it was his worst moment. He even knows what he did was scum. It hits me close to home. Maybe that is why the issue angers me so. It is not the bedroom that is the problem it is the reason why he left the wife. He was no prize catch after the POW stay and she did not leave him for another man.

 

[Inferno]

Nobody does anything wrong unless the courts say they did? That's not very solid reasoning.

Ted Kennedy did absolutely nothing to help the woman. He just let her die, even though he was responsible for what happened to her. That is as bad as killing her.

I would still like to know how you can say he killed her when he did not. It was an accident and she died. What could he do? That is perfectly sound reasoning. You just don't call someone a murderer with no proof in the country that is what they call presumption of innocence. You are innocent until proven guilty in the courts. That is just the way it is.

 

[Jerry]

But it is no ones business who anyone sleeps with as long as they are consenting adults.

Isn't that your primary logic for supporting gay-marriage?

Yes and it still is.

Hmm, well you'll excuse me for not supporting gay-marriage or abortion if it means enabling that hyper-individualism and social isolationism, as I have personally been greatly harmed by the infidelity of other "consenting adults": http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/10640-my-true-colors.html

Liberal Feminism is directly responsible for the destruction of my childhood home, and partly responsible for my separation.

I am being harmed because of people like you.

It can be consensual AND wrong.
It can be consensual AND immoral.
It can be consensual AND unethical.
It can be consensual AND justly illegal.

Therefore, consent is not the determining factor. Consent is an afterthought when all other requirements have been first met.

When you say you don't care about my vote, you're saying you don't care about the children harmed in divorce.

If you are not going to first place the family ahead of yourself, then you are scum.

 

[Inferno]

Hmm, well you'll excuse me for not supporting gay-marriage or abortion if it means enabling that hyper-individualism and social isolationism, as I have personally been greatly harmed by the infidelity of other "consenting adults": http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/10640-my-true-colors.html

It can be consensual AND wrong.
It can be consensual AND immoral.
It can be consensual AND unethical.
It can be consensual AND justly illegal.

Therefore, consent is not the determining factor. Consent is an afterthought when all other requirements have been first meet.

If you are not going to first place the family ahead of yourself, then you are scum.

And now you know why I debate those issue the way I do.

You still have failed over and over again to see that the point is that the man leaves his wife because she is now tainted and not this model. He then plays to the public and the religious right that has all of these high standards and the man is an adulterer and he left his wife because she is crippled. That is the point. You are making the fact that i call him scum solely because of the sex. That is part of is as he was playing to the righteous few that stand in moral judgment over all of us. But he left her because she was no longer the beauty queen. He sucks. He always will suck.

 

[Caine]

Are you sure?



Shshshshshhhhhh...it's non of your business, remember?



Oh, well so much for principals.

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

[celticlord]

Then he never killed anyone it was an unfortunate accident. You may think it but if it is not proven in court he killed no one.

Ted Kennedy did indeed kill Mary Jo Kopechne. He was driving the car, he crashed the car, he left her in the car. Those are the facts. There is no serious debate to be had on that issue.

Whether his actions were or were not criminal may be debated, as there was no trial.

 

[WI Crippler]

So if McCain wouldn't have "pandered" to the religious right, then he'd be ok? That seems to be the sticking point here. He did something bad, and then asked for the backing of the religious right. Its no matter that he admitted out front, publically, it was his worst moment and in no way created the illusion that what he did was moral or justified. He just pandered to the religious right for votes, which is the same as pandering to any other group of people for votes IMO, and therefor is scum. :roll:

 

[Gardener]

If people assail a democrat for hat which they forgive in a republican or visa versa, they are acting hypocritically. Likewise, when a politician, themself, purports to uphold a certain value and then behaves in ways contrary to such, they are acting hypocritically.

Should we fail to note the hypocrisy of the politician while pointing it out among the partisans, are we not acting somewhat as a hypocrite, ourselves?

 

[Caine]

If people assail a democrat for hat which they forgive in a republican or visa versa, they are acting hypocritically. Likewise, when a politician, themself, purports to uphold a certain value and then behaves in ways contrary to such, they are acting hypocritically.

Should we fail to note the hypocrisy of the politician while pointing it out among the partisans, are we not acting somewhat as a hypocrite, ourselves?

HuH?

You'll have to reword this.

 

[WI Crippler]

If people assail a democrat for hat which they forgive in a republican or visa versa, they are acting hypocritically. Likewise, when a politician, themself, purports to uphold a certain value and then behaves in ways contrary to such, they are acting hypocritically.

Should we fail to note the hypocrisy of the politician while pointing it out among the partisans, are we not acting somewhat as a hypocrite, ourselves?

So the ticket out, for a politician, is to not stand up for any moral standard? That way, we can never hold them accountable for their actions.......

Here's the rub. Society, and the individuals can make its determinations as to what they consider to be morally bankrupt behavior. Whether or not a politician postulates that they uphold those values is mostly irrelevant. McCain doing something bad, to me, holds the exact same weight if John Kerry were to do the same. As the title of the OP states, they are humans. Hypocrisy is bound to creep into every aspect of human society so long as we believe in certain moral principals. But we shouldn't abandon moral principals, simply because a few people cannot adhere to them. If we want to eliminate hypocrisy in government and humans, then only anarchy will suffice.

 

[Ikari]

Today, I am reading a lot of posts by people who are trashing the Governor of South Carolina. They are Democrats, he is a Republican. Not so long ago, I was reading posts by people who trashed John Edwards. They were Republicans, he is a Democrat. Kind of funny that those who defended Edwards so vigorously are trashing Mark Sanford, and those who trashed Edwards seem to be defending Sanford. So, is this really about indignant rage, or is is about selective rage, if the object of that rage is only the guy on the other side of the aisle from you?

Let's look at it this way - Either the Bible, if you believe in a Christian God, or folklore, if you don't, says that the only perfect person that ever existed died 2,000 years ago, and there hasn't been one since. That guy, who is said to have been perfect, stated "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". I think it's good advise, whether or not the story is true. Based on that advise, wouldn't you think that a better measure of a man's (or woman's) worth is how wisely he or she governed? Hitler is said to have been faithful to his mistress, but look at all the crazy and nasty crap he did. On the other hand, Ike Eisenhower had a mistress, and was one of our most beloved presidents.

To sum it all up, I don't give a damn about who a politician has diddled with, just so long as he or she hasn't diddled with the Constitution of the United States. It's just common sense, but in this political climate, a lot of people just don't have any sense at all.

Thanx for reading my rant.

I don't know what you're talking about....but I'm definitely a god.

>.>
<.<

Also, I take it as the base that politicians are cheating on their spouses.

 

[Caine]

So the ticket out, for a politician, is to not stand up for any moral standard? That way, we can never hold them accountable for their actions.......

Here's the rub. Society, and the individuals can make its determinations as to what they consider to be morally bankrupt behavior. Whether or not a politician postulates that they uphold those values is mostly irrelevant. McCain doing something bad, to me, holds the exact same weight if John Kerry were to do the same. As the title of the OP states, they are humans. Hypocrisy is bound to creep into every aspect of human society so long as we believe in certain moral principals. But we shouldn't abandon moral principals, simply because a few people cannot adhere to them. If we want to eliminate hypocrisy in government and humans, then only anarchy will suffice.

There are certain things you just know to be true.

A. Everyone is a hypocrit.

B. Everyone is racist (with the current standards of "racism" aka Anything mentioning race, except white).

C. Only douchebags who lack maturity and integrity will try to claim that they are not.

 

[Gardener]

So the ticket out, for a politician, is to not stand up for any moral standard? That way, we can never hold them accountable for their actions.......

Here's the rub. Society, and the individuals can make its determinations as to what they consider to be morally bankrupt behavior. Whether or not a politician postulates that they uphold those values is mostly irrelevant. McCain doing something bad, to me, holds the exact same weight if John Kerry were to do the same. As the title of the OP states, they are humans. Hypocrisy is bound to creep into every aspect of human society so long as we believe in certain moral principals. But we shouldn't abandon moral principals, simply because a few people cannot adhere to them. If we want to eliminate hypocrisy in government and humans, then only anarchy will suffice.

I certainly said nothing about abandoning moral principles here. Heck, I can be insufferably didactic at times, myself, and loathe the more extreme forms of moral relativism.


My point here is that if one is to criticize the hypocricy of those evaluating acts according to partisan standards -- the point of the o.p. -- then one should also look to the inherent hypocrisy of those who commited the acts in the first place. After all, we are criticizing hypocrisy here, aren't we?

 

[tlmorg02]

I think it is a shame that we expect our public officials to be more than human. I know many people who wait for these guys or gals to fall just to trounce, and this seems to be the case now days. I really cannot get over people who call for politicians to resign over affairs. The SC governor should be in trouble for simply disappearing, but for sex, no. We do not require these standards of anyone else in society, we do not ask CEO's or workers to resign if they are unfaithful to their spouses. Therefor, we must realize that they are there for their compacity to legislate and execute, not because they are a pure as angels or anything. People fall all the time from grace, we are supposed to help pick them up and teach them how to not fall again, not push their face in the mud.

 

[Zyphlin]

To sum it all up, I don't give a damn about who a politician has diddled with

Good post Dan but.....huwaahhhh? When'd your stance on the above change? You used to love being at the forefront of posting "Gay Republican Sex Scandal" posts

 

[danarhea]

Good post Dan but.....huwaahhhh? When'd your stance on the above change? You used to love being at the forefront of posting "Gay Republican Sex Scandal" posts

I do that mostly to tweak the noses of the morality police, which is mostly represented by the Republican party. However, if a closeted gay Republican from my district, who dares to tell other people how to live their lives, is himself outed, I would still vote for him if he did a good job. But that wouldn't stop me from posting a good laugh in this forum at his expense. LOL.

 

[danarhea]

My main question is, how much do you put up with? Ted Kennedy killed a woman, his first reaction to which was to phone his advisors to find out how to cover it up. Is that "his own business"? I wouldn't say so. Marion Barry snorted crack, his defense being "bitch set me up". That is not his own business when he is supposed to be representing the people of D.C.

Look - For every Marion Barry, there is a Larry Craig. For every Larry Craig, there is a William Jefferson. For every William Jefferson, there is a Helen Chenoweth. Etc, Etc, Etc. Why point out only the ones on the other side, while ignoring the ones on your own side, unless the point you are trying to make is not morality, but just pointing the finger at the other side, while giving those on your own side a free pass? That is pretty much the definition of hypocrisy, isn't it? This is one of the subjects of my thread, and it's so nice to see that there are people here who like me so much that they will go out of their way to prove that I am right. :mrgreen:

 

[Dav]

Look - For every Marion Barry, there is a Larry Craig. For every Larry Craig, there is a William Jefferson. For every William Jefferson, there is a Helen Chenoweth. Etc, Etc, Etc. Why point out only the ones on the other side, while ignoring the ones on your own side, unless the point you are trying to make is not morality, but just pointing the finger at the other side, while giving those on your own side a free pass? That is pretty much the definition of hypocrisy, isn't it? This is one of the subjects of my thread, and it's so nice to see that there are people here who like me so much that they will go out of their way to prove that I am right. :mrgreen:

I gave examples from what I know. I did not include Larry Craig because I thought you would categorize his scandal as "who he diddles with is none of our business", and didn't include Helen Chenoweth because I have no idea who she is. You still did not answer my question: if adultery is acceptable, how much else is?

 

[danarhea]

I gave examples from what I know. I did not include Larry Craig because I thought you would categorize his scandal as "who he diddles with is none of our business", and didn't include Helen Chenoweth because I have no idea who she is. You still did not answer my question: if adultery is acceptable, how much else is?

As long as they govern well, then anything they do is acceptable, as long as they do not violate somebody else's Constitutional rights in the process.

BTW, Helen Chenowith is the lady who said that Clinton's adultery was immoral, then got caught in an adulterous affair herself.

As for Clinton, I don't care about his adultery, but I do care that he perjured himself in front of a grand jury, which is why I was in favor of his impeachment.

 

[Dav]

As long as they govern well, then anything they do is acceptable, as long as they do not violate somebody else's Constitutional rights in the process.

BTW, Helen Chenowith is the lady who said that Clinton's adultery was immoral, then got caught in an adulterous affair herself.

As for Clinton, I don't care about his adultery, but I do care that he perjured himself in front of a grand jury, which is why I was in favor of his impeachment.

But you cannot separate the person from the politician. If someone is a murderous cheating hypocrite in their personal life, chances are they will be a murderous cheating hypocrite in politics, too. As you said, these people are not gods, they cannot put aside their own defects while they practice policy.

Not to mention, these people are supposed to be representing us. It is supposed to be an honor to be elected representative, and I do not want murderers, hypocrites, or crack-heads representing me.

 

[danarhea]

But you cannot separate the person from the politician. If someone is a murderous cheating hypocrite in their personal life, chances are they will be a murderous cheating hypocrite in politics, too. As you said, these people are not gods, they cannot put aside their own defects while they practice policy.

Not to mention, these people are supposed to be representing us. It is supposed to be an honor to be elected representative, and I do not want murderers, hypocrites, or crack-heads representing me.

At least not Democratic ones, right? :mrgreen:

 

[Dav]

At least not Democratic ones, right? :mrgreen:

Well hey, they just happen to be the only party with murderous cheating hypocrites :lol:

Really though, if I lived in Iowa, or wherever it is Larry Craig is from, I would never vote for him.

 

[Caine]

Look - For every Marion Barry, there is a Larry Craig. For every Larry Craig, there is a William Jefferson. For every William Jefferson, there is a Helen Chenoweth. Etc, Etc, Etc. Why point out only the ones on the other side, while ignoring the ones on your own side, unless the point you are trying to make is not morality, but just pointing the finger at the other side, while giving those on your own side a free pass? That is pretty much the definition of hypocrisy, isn't it? This is one of the subjects of my thread, and it's so nice to see that there are people here who like me so much that they will go out of their way to prove that I am right. :mrgreen:

So your saying it is okay to commit felonies if you are elected to an executive level position?

(crack, cocaine)

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Yes and it still is. I don't cheat and leave my wife because she is no longer a beauty queen and she is crippled. That is why the **** is a scumbag. It is not the sex. You ditch your wife because she is crippled and you would be a scumbag as well.

I happen to have been in a relationship and became crippled and my partner did not find me unfit to be her partner she was at my side. That scumbag left his wife for a beauty queen because she was no longer the princess at the prom. That is not about sex that is about being scum.

Your views are inconsistent on this issue.