Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 164
  1. #21
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I think it's likely that Hilary knew of the her husband's indiscretions - it's certainly not a revelation to her. And it is entirely possible that fidelity wasn't a marriage requirement at all - so I don't think your reference to integrity necessarily applies: you're just imposing your views on marriage onto her. What Bill did was to be caught and cause embarrassment but that's not a moral issue either.
    And that would only further degrade my sense of their integrity. To knowingly condone an affair between the president and one of his interns and to use the government office as a sex playground is corrupt and morally very flawed. You may find it acceptable behavior but I would not.

    ---------- Post added at 10:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    How is sex between two consenting adults morally wrong?
    1. Using a government office for a sex playground is a misuse of the property of the state for personal purposes demeaning to the office
    2. Employers engaging in sex with employees is highly unethical due to the strong potential for exploitation
    3. Presidents are expected to set a good moral example and breaking your marriage vows is not a good moral example
    4. It has the potential to be incredibly embarrassing for your family
    5. It has the potential to be incredibly embarrassing for your political party
    6. It has the potential to be incredibly embarrassing for your country

    It is not that the man can't have sex, it is that in order to have this sex he shirked a wide range of duties and responsibilities just so he could get off. Its amazingly selfish and arrogant.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  2. #22
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    And that would only further degrade my sense of their integrity. To knowingly condone an affair between the president and one of his interns and to use the government office as a sex playground is corrupt and morally very flawed. You may find it acceptable behavior but I would not.
    Meh. People like to have sex and powerful people do so probably very liberally and secretly. A large part of the British Establishment has been doing so since probably forever; it would not shock me at all that American politicians are any different.

    However, that's Bill's legacy. I think you're pulling Hilary into this unfairly. She isn't being immoral by continuing to be married and the public spectacle that would bring.

    Are you going to say the same of Chelsea when she runs? That her morals can be questioned because she didn't disown her father?

    This whole line against Hilary has nothing to do with her role as a President and everything to do with diminishing a woman who through no fault of her own was caught up in her husband's scandal. I think she has been punished enough.

  3. #23
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,875
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    In all three, her record was blah. Arguably, she was an utter failure as Secretary of State. Whether you believe she was complicit in Benghazi, it still happened on her watch. She still carried out the President's directive to evacuate Iraq, which it turns out was a really bad move. She still did nothing to prevent Russia from rolling into Ukraine. Her reset button gimmick was laugh out loud funny. She lists as one of her accomplishments her travel schedule. That isn't an accomplishment. Again, as a Senator, she had a minimal record and this isn't an indictment of her. It is just the way Senate politics work. Yet, instead of running for a governorship where she would have had a real chance to accomplish things in a short time, she chose to run for Senate. This was intentional, in my opinion, as it allows her to claim experience without really having had to do much. So, again, are spearheading some children's programs the pinnacle of her success? As much as you may despise it, the President is about national security first and foremost. His #1 job is to protect the borders of this country. If he fails that, nothing else really matters does it? So, the question is, given her foreign affairs record, is the person we want running this country? I am guessing you believe yes. And in that regard, I cannot really figure out why. This is just an incredibly flawed human being and I cannot figure out why she appeals to people. I see her interact with others and just get the impression she has genuine disdain for the people she is claiming she wants to work for. That's just my opinion. I am not trying to compare her to anyone. Just on her own, I do not understand the appeal.

    All your opinion. Based on, well, pretty much nothing.

    Leaving Iraq?...HURRAH! Let's see, it'd be the invasion (and the screw-up afterwards) that was the colossal mistake/blunder of the century so far.

    ---------- Post added at 02:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    1. Using a government office for a sex playground is a misuse of the property of the state for personal purposes demeaning to the office
    2. Employers engaging in sex with employees is highly unethical due to the strong potential for exploitation
    3. Presidents are expected to set a good moral example and breaking your marriage vows is not a good moral example
    4. It has the potential to be incredibly embarrassing for your family
    5. It has the potential to be incredibly embarrassing for your political party
    6. It has the potential to be incredibly embarrassing for your country
    It's not only his office, it's also his residence (just like the governor's mansion was)
    There's no evidence of exploitation - Monica never made any such claim

    How do you know he broke his marriage vows?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  4. #24
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,975
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Because she's a woman: http://campusreform.org/?ID=6452
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  5. #25
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Are you going to say the same of Chelsea when she runs? That her morals can be questioned because she didn't disown her father?
    i would not apply it to Chelsea. Kids don't get to pick their parents and its not simple to disown your folks. I'd be a big surprised and a little disgusted if she though that was a morally acceptable act, but as a child of parents behaving badly I don't hold her accountable for it. Bill I hold most accountable, the mistress next, and Hillary somewhere a fair bit behind that (I only was reacting to your notion that perhaps she condoned it which I would find extra objectionable).

    I think the idea of impeaching for it is laughable at best, but I find the pure dismissal of it by some on the left to be pretty corrupt morally. For me it really shows a lack of good moral character that at a personal level I find pretty despicable. But as a voter, its not quite such a big deal as personal integrity often isn't all that important for a president. It helps, I like it as a trait and vote on it, but ultimately it you could still be a fantastic president even if you have bad family/sexual morality.

    This whole line against Hilary has nothing to do with her role as a President and everything to do with diminishing a woman who through no fault of her own was caught up in her husband's scandal. I think she has been punished enough.
    I mostly agree. I still don't find her appealing as a person. She very clearly thinks and behaves rather differently than I would. I think it is fair to include it in your judgement of her so long as you keep it in perspective. Personally I don't think she is responsible for it, but it still seems to me she put career ahead of family on the public face, what she did in private I just don't know, though I would presume she gave bill some death rays over the thing, if nothing else for getting caught and embarrassing them.

    ---------- Post added at 04:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    1. It's not only his office, it's also his residence (just like the governor's mansion was)
    2. There's no evidence of exploitation - Monica never made any such claim
    3. How do you know he broke his marriage vows?
    1. Even if its attached to your house, your office is not for getting blowjobs from your mistress, especially when you are the president of the US
    2. True, but not relevant. Nearly every office has rules against this because it very well can lead to abuse and if not that then often conflicts of interest.
    3. Because nearly all marriage vows implicitly or explicit include monogamous sexual exclusivity. Even if privately they had some arrangement the public perception is that they have a monogamous marriage and they have done nothing to indicate otherwise.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  6. #26
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I think the idea of impeaching for it is laughable at best, but I find the pure dismissal of it by some on the left to be pretty corrupt morally. For me it really shows a lack of good moral character that at a personal level I find pretty despicable. But as a voter, its not quite such a big deal as personal integrity often isn't all that important for a president. It helps, I like it as a trait and vote on it, but ultimately it you could still be a fantastic president even if you have bad family/sexual morality.
    I don't think anyone is really purely dismissing it so much as wondering why it is really relevant at all after almost 20 years! Given that the Democratic field is likely going to be a bunch of nobodies or Barney Frank, who is gay and therefore has zero chance in today's political climate, would you seriously add this as a factor? And what if Hilary was also part of the affair (like in House of Cards), would it be morally acceptable then?

    I mostly agree. I still don't find her appealing as a person. She very clearly thinks and behaves rather differently than I would. I think it is fair to include it in your judgement of her so long as you keep it in perspective. Personally I don't think she is responsible for it, but it still seems to me she put career ahead of family on the public face, what she did in private I just don't know, though I would presume she gave bill some death rays over the thing, if nothing else for getting caught and embarrassing them.
    I think people that seek power will do so above all else - it isn't so much a question of morality so much as political expediency. It is only those that preach a puritanical life-style (aka "family values") that get caught in the hypocrisy of an affair -- I don't think the Clintons have ever projected anything other than unbridled love for power despite personal issues.

    Neither of the Clintons slunk away to live off their riches; I believe they, like most politicians and people of power, want to make the world a better place as they see it. For Hilary, I was amazed that she took the Secretary of State position, opening herself up to now being responsible for the "3am call" -- I think that took a lot of guts and courage but most of all it took swallowing her pride and getting herself out there. It's like there is no way to shame or embarrass her - I think that would play well on the world stage.

    She's even survived the whole personal server thing and the new book about her donors is similarly heading nowhere. At the moment, she seems quite unstoppable; I think all this talk of the affair will go nowhere, if anything, I think it makes her a stronger candidate on women's issues.

  7. #27
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I don't think anyone is really purely dismissing it so much as wondering why it is really relevant at all after almost 20 years! Given that the Democratic field is likely going to be a bunch of nobodies or Barney Frank, who is gay and therefore has zero chance in today's political climate, would you seriously add this as a factor? And what if Hilary was also part of the affair (like in House of Cards), would it be morally acceptable then?
    Its remarkable more than relevant. Its the only time a president has been caught red handed as it were dipping into the cookie jar. Kennedy is widely suspected but no one really knows. I suspect a gay presidential candidate would not be an auto loose, but no one has Hillary's pull so unless we have another Obama type, she's the only game in town.

    If hillary was in on it, and they didn't do it in the oval office, and no one found out, no problemo. If you can keep that **** private and out of view I can't possibly pass judgement on it. Now lets say I had a secret tape, I'd still feel shtupping the intern is bad news, but say it was a prostitute or friend not in their employ, no problem. But that's not what happened.

    I think people that seek power will do so above all else - it isn't so much a question of morality so much as political expediency. It is only those that preach a puritanical life-style (aka "family values") that get caught in the hypocrisy of an affair -- I don't think the Clintons have ever projected anything other than unbridled love for power despite personal issues.
    I'd not call they hypocrites on that, but shameless power mongers are not high on my list of admirable people, lower still for many others. Obama has never struck me as a power monger, he's a fairly principled guy. His family life is exemplary. Even many republicans often comment on him setting a good example in that regard.

    Neither of the Clintons slunk away to live off their riches; I believe they, like most politicians and people of power, want to make the world a better place as they see it. For Hilary, I was amazed that she took the Secretary of State position, opening herself up to now being responsible for the "3am call" -- I think that took a lot of guts and courage but most of all it took swallowing her pride and getting herself out there. It's like there is no way to shame or embarrass her - I think that would play well on the world stage.
    Eh, she had to keep her foot in the game to be viable after Obama and its no secret she wants to be president. She's no coward for sure, nor dumb.

    She's even survived the whole personal server thing and the new book about her donors is similarly heading nowhere. At the moment, she seems quite unstoppable; I think all this talk of the affair will go nowhere, if anything, I think it makes her a stronger candidate on women's issues.
    Ya, I think whatever the GOP sends out this will be close. A lot of lefties are not super excited about hillary (me included) and that tends to be a challenge. I think they'd be fools to underestimate her, they did that to Obama and it got them nowhere. But, I think ultimately it will be another nail biter of an election.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  8. #28
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Its remarkable more than relevant. Its the only time a president has been caught red handed as it were dipping into the cookie jar.
    It's a bit much to say he was "caught red handed" - he was betrayed by a Tripp who (arguably) illegally recorded the mistress who couldn't keep her mouth shut.

    Kennedy is widely suspected but no one really knows.
    If Bill Cosby did then I'm pretty sure Kennedy did!


    I suspect a gay presidential candidate would not be an auto loose, but no one has Hillary's pull so unless we have another Obama type, she's the only game in town.
    Really? You do realize Barney Frank is also married! Given the support for actual direct bigotry against homosexuals still being fought, do you really think that anyone would recognize a gay president? Micelle Bachmann's head would literally explode at the shock!


    I'd not call they hypocrites on that, but shameless power mongers are not high on my list of admirable people, lower still for many others. Obama has never struck me as a power monger, he's a fairly principled guy. His family life is exemplary. Even many republicans often comment on him setting a good example in that regard.
    What I mean is that the desire for power is a job requirement. Obama's ambitions for power are just as strong and he is just as driven as any politician - the mistake he made early on was believing that that Republicans would also like him and would work with him. Hilary has no such illusions and will be a stronger President for it IMHO. You are right on his family life and Hilary's is forever tainted in that regard but at the same time, she also represents a realistic view of family and relationships - of the flaws of people, of being able to stick together despite mistakes, of moving forward as a family to carry on and try and make the best of it. I think the American people will recognize that very personal part of her story too.


    Ya, I think whatever the GOP sends out this will be close. A lot of lefties are not super excited about hillary (me included) and that tends to be a challenge. I think they'd be fools to underestimate her, they did that to Obama and it got them nowhere. But, I think ultimately it will be another nail biter of an election.
    Like I said earlier, Democrats are bit players in this one - our only "job" is to vote. And she still has to declare her running mate, so that would be interesting to see.

    The gay rights issue is a big one given the last few months and the Supreme Court's ruling in the summer and Republican candidates now being asked whether they would attend a gay family members wedding (answers ranging from no, but I would attend the reception to Santorum's outright no). It could be that the most bigoted one will win, in which case it will be a slam-dunk Clinton presidency. Or it could be that this is a non-issue in the primaries, in which case, we may get Rand Paul (with his father's baggage and his civil rights answers). In which case, it'll be whether people hate Clinton more than they hate Paul!

    Whoever it is, it will be nail-biter until the end though - I agree there!

    ---------- Post added at 06:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:24 PM ----------

    lol, I was right, Clinton's pro-gay credentials are already being challenged:

    Hillary Clinton 2004: Heterosexual marriage is a fundamental bedrock principle of civilization

  9. Likes Sigfried liked this post
  10. #29
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,875
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post

    1. Even if its attached to your house, your office is not for getting blowjobs from your mistress, especially when you are the president of the US
    Says you and your prudish ways. What a bout a hug, or a kiss?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    2. True, but not relevant. Nearly every office has rules against this because it very well can lead to abuse and if not that then often conflicts of interest.
    Hmmm, was she a direct report?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    3. Because nearly all marriage vows implicitly or explicit include monogamous sexual exclusivity. Even if privately they had some arrangement the public perception is that they have a monogamous marriage and they have done nothing to indicate otherwise.
    Yes, because it is none of your business.

    I find it hard to believe you truly care about what someone else does sexually. Which leads me to conclude that the hub-bub is nothing more than a political ploy. Your feigned moral outrage is transparent.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  11. #30
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    It's a bit much to say he was "caught red handed" - he was betrayed by a Tripp who (arguably) illegally recorded the mistress who couldn't keep her mouth shut.
    Fair enough. Still, the best way to not get caught is not to do it.

    If Bill Cosby did then I'm pretty sure Kennedy did!
    Again, its more about if we know for certain, and with Clinton we did. Kennedy we just strongly suspect. Cosby.. ugh looks pretty bad and folks will remember it no doubt. But again, we don't know and knowing is half the battle. ;P

    Really? You do realize Barney Frank is also married! Given the support for actual direct bigotry against homosexuals still being fought, do you really think that anyone would recognize a gay president? Micelle Bachmann's head would literally explode at the shock!
    Bachmann isn't going to vote for any democrat. There are plenty who hate homosexuality out there, but there are also a vast and growing number who think its perfectly fine. We have gay mayors, at least one gay governor, and gay senators so a gay president is not a huge stretch of the imagination. It would be a disadvantage, but its not cray cray.

    What I mean is that the desire for power is a job requirement. Obama's ambitions for power are just as strong and he is just as driven as any politician - the mistake he made early on was believing that that Republicans would also like him and would work with him. Hilary has no such illusions and will be a stronger President for it IMHO. You are right on his family life and Hilary's is forever tainted in that regard but at the same time, she also represents a realistic view of family and relationships - of the flaws of people, of being able to stick together despite mistakes, of moving forward as a family to carry on and try and make the best of it. I think the American people will recognize that very personal part of her story too.
    I don't disagree with that, but there is ambition and there is corruption.
    Obama doesn't cheat on his wife in the oval office (so far as we can tell), Clinton did. Both had ambition, one of them kept his nose clean to further his ambition, the other got it dirty despite his ambition. Its better to simply be a good man and not cheat. Being immoral and having ambition are not the same thing.

    The gay rights issue is a big one given the last few months and the Supreme Court's ruling in the summer and Republican candidates now being asked whether they would attend a gay family members wedding (answers ranging from no, but I would attend the reception to Santorum's outright no). It could be that the most bigoted one will win, in which case it will be a slam-dunk Clinton presidency. Or it could be that this is a non-issue in the primaries, in which case, we may get Rand Paul (with his father's baggage and his civil rights answers). In which case, it'll be whether people hate Clinton more than they hate Paul!
    Who they pick will change the dynamic. I can't imagine Paul or Santorum will make it. But I've been wrong before!

    lol, I was right, Clinton's pro-gay credentials are already being challenged:

    Hillary Clinton 2004: Heterosexual marriage is a fundamental bedrock principle of civilization
    And they should but she's come around. Obama was pretty honest in admitting his anti-gay marriage stand during the first election was really just him playing to the political winds of the time. People have shifted and now he's in open support. I suspect he's always been but tamped it down for the election. I suppose that is one example of him compromising a moral view for politics. With Hillary I'm not sure, will be interesting to see if and how she responds if the question carries any real weight in the media cycle.

    ---------- Post added at 03:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:17 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Says you and your prudish ways. What a bout a hug, or a kiss?
    I'm proud to be a prude in certain respects like not cheating on my wife. A hug is certainly fine, a non romantic kiss is OK. Romantic kissing, bad, but not as bad as getting a blowjob or using cigars as dildos. Level of intimacy = level of badness here.

    Hmmm, was she a direct report?
    Not direct I imagine, but she was staff in the office and he's the head of that office. Usually you can't sleep up or down the chain of command, only across it. The idea, in order of importance is...
    1. You can't use your organizational power to pressure people into having sex with you for fear of loosing their job
    2. You can't be seen to have an interest in promoting or rewarding employees because you like having sex with them rather than due to their performance as it is unfair to other employees and to the business itself.

    Yes, because it is none of your business.
    Of course not. If a man beats his wife it is also not my business but I none the less judge him immoral for it. We are not talking about me interfering with their marriage, only what my opinion of their behavior in it is.

    I find it hard to believe you truly care about what someone else does sexually.
    I care because marriage is part of our social system. People get married and have kids and form families that are a foundation of how people take care of one another. When marriages break down children go without parents, parents themselves often struggle and it creates conditions ripe for crime, poverty, social diseases and other maladies that they and others suffer from. People who undermine their own families due to their personal greed are people I have a personal problem with. I also have a problem with racists and bigots. I also have problems with lazy people. I rarely go out of my way to punish any of these, but I still judge them and when I choose a friend or a leader I take their behavior into account.

    Which leads me to conclude that the hub-bub is nothing more than a political ploy. Your feigned moral outrage is transparent.
    I'm not feigning anything. I generally vote for democrats and other liberal minded folks. If you half way pay attention to anything I write here you would know that.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  12. #31
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Fair enough. Still, the best way to not get caught is not to do it.

    Again, its more about if we know for certain, and with Clinton we did. Kennedy we just strongly suspect. Cosby.. ugh looks pretty bad and folks will remember it no doubt. But again, we don't know and knowing is half the battle. ;P
    Well, it certainly happened and she will be made to pay for it over and over again for the rest of her life. A case in point, and full disclosure, I don't know if this is satire or not, apparently there is a campaign to send cigars to Clinton: Hillary Furious as Thousands of Americans Send Cigars to Her Office. Sigh, I just hope these people realize that they're hurting their own side more than Clinton is being hurt.

    Bachmann isn't going to vote for any democrat. There are plenty who hate homosexuality out there, but there are also a vast and growing number who think its perfectly fine. We have gay mayors, at least one gay governor, and gay senators so a gay president is not a huge stretch of the imagination. It would be a disadvantage, but its not cray cray.
    The country is certainly swinging in the right direction. There is even a large religious contingent that filed a brief to SCOTUS on the pending issue (The Surprising Religious Breakdown Of Same-Sex Marriage Support). However, the point of all the recent fuss and bother isn't so much about gay marriage per se, and certainly not "religious freedom", but that it is simple litmus test to distinguish the right from The Right. A gay president would most certainly usher in The Gay into the country in a huge unavoidable way - those supporters of abstinence would now have a little more to explain; the President and the First Gentleman would have to be reconciled by what bigoted parents have likely taught their children; and goodness knows what how the world stage (especially our Muslim neighbors) would treat him. I just don't see it happening.

    And they should but she's come around. Obama was pretty honest in admitting his anti-gay marriage stand during the first election was really just him playing to the political winds of the time. People have shifted and now he's in open support. I suspect he's always been but tamped it down for the election. I suppose that is one example of him compromising a moral view for politics. With Hillary I'm not sure, will be interesting to see if and how she responds if the question carries any real weight in the media cycle.
    I'm hoping to see more of the "what difference does it make" Clinton. Those arguments are going to have a greater effect on independents who are less driven by ideology and more driven by arguments, posture, facts and practicality.

  13. #32
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Well, it certainly happened and she will be made to pay for it over and over again for the rest of her life. A case in point, and full disclosure, I don't know if this is satire or not, apparently there is a campaign to send cigars to Clinton: Hillary Furious as Thousands of Americans Send Cigars to Her Office. Sigh, I just hope these people realize that they're hurting their own side more than Clinton is being hurt.
    And that sort of behavior I'd condemn as well. Its one thing to judge her and not consider her fit to be your leader, but another to personally reach out and antagonize her for her own life. This is where I draw the line of what is my business and what isn't. Having an opinion and running my own life in accordance is my business, trying to punish people for their personal lives is not my business.

    The country is certainly swinging in the right direction. There is even a large religious contingent that filed a brief to SCOTUS on the pending issue (The Surprising Religious Breakdown Of Same-Sex Marriage Support). However, the point of all the recent fuss and bother isn't so much about gay marriage per se, and certainly not "religious freedom", but that it is simple litmus test to distinguish the right from The Right. A gay president would most certainly usher in The Gay into the country in a huge unavoidable way - those supporters of abstinence would now have a little more to explain; the President and the First Gentleman would have to be reconciled by what bigoted parents have likely taught their children; and goodness knows what how the world stage (especially our Muslim neighbors) would treat him. I just don't see it happening.
    You are likely correct, but I've been surprised as of late by how far the pendulum has swung (in the proper direction) in the past few years.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  14. #33
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,875
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I'm proud to be a prude in certain respects like not cheating on my wife. A hug is certainly fine, a non romantic kiss is OK. Romantic kissing, bad, but not as bad as getting a blowjob or using cigars as dildos. Level of intimacy = level of badness here.

    Not direct I imagine, but she was staff in the office and he's the head of that office. Usually you can't sleep up or down the chain of command, only across it. The idea, in order of importance is...
    1. You can't use your organizational power to pressure people into having sex with you for fear of loosing their job
    2. You can't be seen to have an interest in promoting or rewarding employees because you like having sex with them rather than due to their performance as it is unfair to other employees and to the business itself.

    Of course not. If a man beats his wife it is also not my business but I none the less judge him immoral for it. We are not talking about me interfering with their marriage, only what my opinion of their behavior in it is.

    I care because marriage is part of our social system. People get married and have kids and form families that are a foundation of how people take care of one another. When marriages break down children go without parents, parents themselves often struggle and it creates conditions ripe for crime, poverty, social diseases and other maladies that they and others suffer from. People who undermine their own families due to their personal greed are people I have a personal problem with. I also have a problem with racists and bigots. I also have problems with lazy people. I rarely go out of my way to punish any of these, but I still judge them and when I choose a friend or a leader I take their behavior into account.

    You have no idea what the state of their marriage is or was, what their arrangement is or was, or whether that was good or bad. *sheesh* you'd have a hard time explaining how their marriage supposedly "broke down".

    They stayed together, continued to be relevant, hard-working members of the party, had successes in the private sector and raised a successful, well-adjusted child. I know marriages confined to your moral guidelines that have none of those things.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  15. #34
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    You have no idea what the state of their marriage is or was, what their arrangement is or was, or whether that was good or bad. *sheesh* you'd have a hard time explaining how their marriage supposedly "broke down".

    They stayed together, continued to be relevant, hard-working members of the party, had successes in the private sector and raised a successful, well-adjusted child. I know marriages confined to your moral guidelines that have none of those things.
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/20/clinton.book/
    "I did something for the worst possible reason -- just because I could," he said. "I think that's just about the most morally indefensible reason anybody could have for doing anything."

    According to an excerpt released by Time, Clinton said he misled his wife and daughter and the American public about his relationship with Lewinsky because "I was embarrassed."

    "I didn't want to help Ken Starr criminalize my personal life, and I didn't want the American people to know I'd let them down. It was like living in a nightmare," he wrote.

    "I went on doing my job, and I stonewalled, denying what had happened to everyone: Hillary, Chelsea, my staff and Cabinet, my friends in Congress, members of the press and the American people. What I regret the most, other than my conduct, is having misled all of them."

    If Clinton himself is to be believed they did not have an arrangement in this regard and he agrees with me that it was a moral failing.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  16. #35
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,875
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/20/clinton.book/
    "I did something for the worst possible reason -- just because I could," he said. "I think that's just about the most morally indefensible reason anybody could have for doing anything."

    According to an excerpt released by Time, Clinton said he misled his wife and daughter and the American public about his relationship with Lewinsky because "I was embarrassed."

    "I didn't want to help Ken Starr criminalize my personal life, and I didn't want the American people to know I'd let them down. It was like living in a nightmare," he wrote.

    "I went on doing my job, and I stonewalled, denying what had happened to everyone: Hillary, Chelsea, my staff and Cabinet, my friends in Congress, members of the press and the American people. What I regret the most, other than my conduct, is having misled all of them."

    If Clinton himself is to be believed they did not have an arrangement in this regard and he agrees with me that it was a moral failing.

    Well, of course, a public act of contrition. Big surprise.

    You're saying you'd respect him or her more if he came out and said he had permission?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  17. #36
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Well, of course, a public act of contrition. Big surprise.

    You're saying you'd respect him or her more if he came out and said he had permission?
    LOL, so you don't believe what he says about himself? I'm not sure what kind of evidence I could provide for you then.

    Yes, I'd very much respect him far more if he came out and said he had permission. I'd still ding him for doing it in the oval office with an intern, but he'd get a pass on the cheating on the people he should respect and honor the most problem.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  18. Likes Squatch347, MindTrap028 liked this post
  19. #37
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,875
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    LOL, so you don't believe what he says about himself? I'm not sure what kind of evidence I could provide for you then.

    Yes, I'd very much respect him far more if he came out and said he had permission. I'd still ding him for doing it in the oval office with an intern, but he'd get a pass on the cheating on the people he should respect and honor the most problem.

    But if he had permission then how would he be cheating?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  20. #38
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    But if he had permission then how would he be cheating?
    Dude, I said I'd give him a pass, meaning he is not guilty of that.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  21. #39
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,141
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    It is interesting to me. I was trying to find a quote about Truman I had read in a book by David McCullogh. Couldn't find it. But I came across an interesting PBS discussion on Presidents and their characteristics. So, I found this quote
    "JIM LEHRER: And that includes lying then. If you lie, and you do it for the right reasons, it's okay."
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/spc/character/transcript/trans3.html

    Here is why it is interesting to me. The Clinton lies have never been for the greater good of the nation. The counterpoint would be FDR who, arguably, lied in order to prepare the U.S. for war in Europe and Asia. I don't want to get into a side-debate over FDR. I'm just saying the argument can be made that his vision led him to lie in order to prepare the nation for what he believed was to occur. So, largely, the American people look fondly upon FDR. Particularly people of his day. On the other hand, the Clintons have been caught in numerous lies and I cannot think of an instance where you can make an argument it was for the greater good. Each time it was to save their own arse. So, while no one expects politicians to be squeaky clean, it is expected that they have some integrity. Some noble purpose. This is especially true of Presidents. It is why history looks so unkindly at Nixon for telling lies but has tended to give FDR a pass. I think it is also something the Democrats see in Hillary which makes them nervous, but they don't have any other options so they are kind of stuck with her. Here is what I think is unique about Hillary. I do not remember a candidate who people have regarded as being so utterly dishonest and yet has maintained such a front-runner status. Not just her. The whole family. In 2000, they tried to kind of put Bush in that light, but it never really stuck. Bush I, was generally seen as a decent human being despite the NWO alarmists. Reagan's image was almost too good. Nixon.... if Hillary can be compared to anyone, it is him. It was his image and poor public perception which lost him the election against Kennedy. He won because people wanted out of Vietnam. Kind of the same reason Obama beat the Republican. People wanted out of Iraq and were willing to risk it all on a junior Senator from Illinois that no one really knew. So, what is the impetus for electing a despicable character like Hillary? If I am a Democrat, I am very, very nervous about 1/2 the country already has made up their mind about her and won't vote for her. The other half may vote for her, but not all of them. Against Obama does anyone remember this?
    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...-51649447.html
    "However, according to a new Harris Poll, half of U.S. adults say they would not vote for Senator Clinton if she was the Democratic candidate"

    Did that many people change their mind? She may have some more support today, but... I'm just not seeing how.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  22. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
    Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  23. #40
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,875
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Support the travelling pant suit

    Faced with a political party determined to score political points and block any type of progress under an opposition's administration - to the detriment of the country - I'd argue that there is a good reason in the face of such a disingenuous effort.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

 

 
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 28
    Last Post: August 13th, 2009, 07:54 AM
  2. A REAL Ironman suit?
    By southernbelle in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 14th, 2008, 07:12 AM
  3. War for oil? SUPPORT IT.
    By Apokalupsis in forum Politics
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: July 12th, 2005, 08:46 PM
  4. Bill O'Reilly hit with sexual harassment suit.
    By Booger in forum Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 15th, 2004, 01:39 PM
  5. Utterly OT: Americans travelling abroad
    By sjjs in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 8th, 2004, 10:51 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •