Reply
Mon 25 Feb, 2008 07:06 pm
Is there anyone on this board, aside from me, who is willing to condemn John McCain's history of adultery?
I don't have a problem with adultery if you mean sex outside of marriage. My problem is with people who don't honor their spouses and their commitment to their spouses. I have a problem with cheaters. It is absolutely a character flaw, and I don't much care how much company they have (how many other people cheat). I especially would like my President to be the kind of person who would not cheat on a spouse.
Those who are swingers or who have an open marriage and have sex or relationships outside of marriage are fine with me. So far as I know McCain did not have permission from his spouse for the relationships outside of his marriages, and if so that is a problem for me. It looks to me that over all Obama is a much more morally upstanding person than McCain is. Those who care about moral character should be voting for Obama.
Re: McCain's character
flaja wrote:Is there anyone on this board, aside from me, who is willing to condemn John McCain's history of adultery?
Because I've not seen any definitive proof of his adultery, I am not able to comment. I have to ask you for you definitive proof. Or are you just speculating because of the recent press drippings.
If a person had stock in a company, would most people care if any top executives, or the actual CEO, was unfaithful in marriage? A stock owner has a vested interest in the stock going up, not in the CEO's pants staying up.
Now as citizens, we in a way as taxpayers, have a vested interest in this country. Can anyone think of a more tangential criterion for voting for the veritable CEO of our nation?
If one is looking for faithfulness in marriage, see one's respective clergy (for those whose clergy are not celibate).
Personally, when it comes to faithfulness in marriage, I thought minding one's own business is the most important virtue.
Foofie wrote:If a person had stock in a company, would most people care if any top executives, or the actual CEO, was unfaithful in marriage? A stock owner has a vested interest in the stock going up, not in the CEO's pants staying up.
Now as citizens, we in a way as taxpayers, have a vested interest in this country. Can anyone think of a more tangential criterion for voting for the veritable CEO of our nation?
If one is looking for faithfulness in marriage, see one's respective clergy (for those whose clergy are not celibate).
Personally, when it comes to faithfulness in marriage, I thought minding one's own business is the most important virtue.
You can't be serious. Everybody in the corporate structure is in the relationship by choice. Additionally in the modern era the only goal for almost all involved is to make money. The President/citizen relationship has about zero in common with the CEO/stockholder relationship.
I definitely disagree. The President can be easily seen as the CEO..the analogy is a common one. If the Presidency were more designed like a CEO arrangement, there might be more accountability and accomplishments.
There is nothing sacred about the Presidency... they are not ordained ministers. In fact, many Presidents have not been monogamous. Their Presidencies are no better or worse due to the fidelity/infidelity ratings.
Ragman wrote:I definitely disagree. The President can be easily seen as the CEO..the analogy is a common one.
.
Only by transforming the citizen into a taxpayer can you transform the President into a CEO, by stripping the relationship down to a superficial and single function. America is full of such small thinkers, but we should not validate their views as being worthy of being taken seriously.
Re: McCain's character
Ragman wrote:flaja wrote:Is there anyone on this board, aside from me, who is willing to condemn John McCain's history of adultery?
Because I've not seen any definitive proof of his adultery, I am not able to comment. I have to ask you for you definitive proof. Or are you just speculating because of the recent press drippings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
I have seen on another board that McCain admitted that his adultery broke up his first marriage.
But I gather that you see nothing wrong with adultery just for the sake of adultery. You think it can be justified. So how often do you commit it?
Foofie wrote:If a person had stock in a company, would most people care if any top executives, or the actual CEO, was unfaithful in marriage? A stock owner has a vested interest in the stock going up, not in the CEO's pants staying up.
Now as citizens, we in a way as taxpayers, have a vested interest in this country. Can anyone think of a more tangential criterion for voting for the veritable CEO of our nation?
If one is looking for faithfulness in marriage, see one's respective clergy (for those whose clergy are not celibate).
Personally, when it comes to faithfulness in marriage, I thought minding one's own business is the most important virtue.
If a man cannot stay faithful to his wife what keeps him from trading political favors for sexual favors to the country's detriment?
perhaps maybe even be a cat burglar or murder too? how absurd?! how is the act of infidelity to a spouse make him a no-good traitor or a spy?
Ragman wrote:I definitely disagree. The President can be easily seen as the CEO..the analogy is a common one. If the Presidency were more designed like a CEO arrangement, there might be more accountability and accomplishments.
There is nothing sacred about the Presidency... they are not ordained ministers. In fact, many Presidents have not been monogamous. Their Presidencies are no better or worse due to the fidelity/infidelity ratings.
Harding has a reputation for sleeping around and his administration was one of the most scandal-plagued in history. He didn't have very high morals himself and he didn't care that the men he appointed to government office didn't have high morals either. Anyone who thinks a bad private character doesn't promote public corruption is a fool.
So Harding was a slimebag. That's one piece of anecdotal evidence. Do you think if he was loyal to his wife he would have been any better a Prez? Also, where is there proof that he didn't care about who he appointed" Perhaps he was just a bad Prez Administrator?
Where is the proof of the slippery slope from marital infidelity to disloyalty to the country? or malfeasance..or incompetence?
FDR and Ike had mistresses and many feel that FDR and Ike were at the least above average Presidents.
flaja wrote:
Harding has a reputation for sleeping around and his administration was one of the most scandal-plagued in history. He didn't have very high morals himself and he didn't care that the men he appointed to government office didn't have high morals either. Anyone who thinks a bad private character doesn't promote public corruption is a fool.
More importantly the person we pick as President is the person who we pick to represent us the the rest of the world. The moral capacity of the person we pick is very much a reflection on us citizens. Go ask any French citizen, those who never gave a damn about such things until they elected a man who took the rope of the citizens allowing their leader to have a personal life unconnected to his public life, and hung the country with it. They are now ashamed to have such a personally reckless man represent them. They think that they are better then that, deserve better.
Personally, I pick a Prez to govern our country. The hell with the rest of the world and what they think.
If the President would concentrate more on domestic issues, we would not be in such deep doo-doo.
Ragman wrote:So Harding was a slimebag. That's one piece of anecdotal evidence. Do you think if he was loyal to his wife he would have been any better a Prez?
Yes because his personal integrity would have been better.
Quote:Also, where is there proof that he didn't care about who he appointed" Perhaps he was just a bad Prez Administrator?
Because most of his appointees were friends he had known back in Ohio. He appointed the people he associated with.
Quote:FDR and Ike had mistresses and many feel that FDR and Ike were at the least above average Presidents.
By whose standards? FDR was one of the worst and Eisenhower was mediocre at best.
This is all I need to know about a Man's character!
Awards, honors, and decorations
Military
* Silver Star
* Legion of Merit
* Bronze Star
* Purple Heart
* Distinguished Flying Cross[283]
* Prisoner of War Medal
* National Defense Service Medal
* Vietnam Service Medal
* Vietnam Campaign Medal (Republic of Vietnam)
Civilian
* On May 24, 1999, McCain shared the Profile in Courage Award with fellow Senator Russ Feingold for their work in trying to enact campaign finance reform.[139]
* In December 2004, McCain became an Honorary Patron of the University Philosophical Society at Trinity College Dublin.[284]
* On September 28, 2005, The Eisenhower Institute awarded McCain the Eisenhower Leadership Prize.[285] The prize recognizes individuals whose lifetime accomplishments reflect Dwight D. Eisenhower's legacy of integrity and leadership.
* On December 5, 2006, McCain was awarded the Henry M. Jackson Distinguished Service Award by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.[286]
* On February 13, 2007, the World Leadership Forum presented McCain with the Policymaker of the Year Award. The award is given internationally to someone who has "created, inspired or strongly influenced important policy or legislation."[287]
You got any of those?
For those that believe that Presidential fidelity in marriage is an important part of a President's ability to govern well, then how about "an ounce of prevention" (is worth a pound of cure)? A government of eunuchs! Then there would be no potential for hanky-panky. Actually, wasn't this done in China in ancient times, where the emperor had many eunuchs in charge of many royal responsibilities? I don't know if things were managed any better?
The above was said in jest, hoping to show that even if a President is totally faithful up to his/her inauguration, the heady intoxication of the position could result in another persona; there are no cures, except for the proverbial snip-snip.
I know Freud talked of pen*s envy; is there some sort of penophobia here? I don't know?
Oh, by the way, what about the old (circa 1940's) Boy Scout concern that if one practices onanism too much, one might suffer mentally, or physically. Should we see if there is the old proverbial hair on the palm of any candidates? I hope you are laughing, since some of this thread, in my opinion (except for Ragman's cogent responses), is really silly.
The problem with making Presidents models of matrimonial morality is that Presidents are just men, not Gods. And, their spouses are also mortal. No one is perfect if they are human. If anyone wants a God to worship go to a House of Worship. And, lastly, the criteria proselytized in this thread, by some, actually reflects a very narrow view of correctness, based on the western model of marriage. The United States is too diverse to proselytize that morality today. This should have been done in the Victorian era!
Ragman wrote:perhaps maybe even be a cat burglar or murder too? how absurd?! how is the act of infidelity to a spouse make him a no-good traitor or a spy?
It just goes to the whole concept of honoring one's word, Ragman - is that hard for you to understand? If someone will break a promise solemnly made to his/her spouse, what about public service would make him/her more likely to honor promises made in that arena?
snood wrote:Ragman wrote:perhaps maybe even be a cat burglar or murder too? how absurd?! how is the act of infidelity to a spouse make him a no-good traitor or a spy?
It just goes to the whole concept of honoring one's word, Ragman - is that hard for you to understand? If someone will break a promise solemnly made to his/her spouse, what about public service would make him/her more likely to honor promises made in that arena?
I'll be as scientific as possible. The part of the brain that governs one's sexual urges is not the part of the brain that governs one's vocational decisions.
And, in history, Hitler's promise not to attack Russia was (Duh!) broken. I'd rather have a "cheatin'" President that would not be so naive to believe another head of state, "I promise never to attack." This loyalty you value may be the flip side of naivety.
woiyo wrote:This is all I need to know about a Man's character!
Awards, honors, and decorations
Military
* Silver Star
* Legion of Merit
* Bronze Star
* Purple Heart
* Distinguished Flying Cross[283]
* Prisoner of War Medal
* National Defense Service Medal
* Vietnam Service Medal
* Vietnam Campaign Medal (Republic of Vietnam)
Civilian
* On May 24, 1999, McCain shared the Profile in Courage Award with fellow Senator Russ Feingold for their work in trying to enact campaign finance reform.[139]
* In December 2004, McCain became an Honorary Patron of the University Philosophical Society at Trinity College Dublin.[284]
* On September 28, 2005, The Eisenhower Institute awarded McCain the Eisenhower Leadership Prize.[285] The prize recognizes individuals whose lifetime accomplishments reflect Dwight D. Eisenhower's legacy of integrity and leadership.
* On December 5, 2006, McCain was awarded the Henry M. Jackson Distinguished Service Award by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.[286]
* On February 13, 2007, the World Leadership Forum presented McCain with the Policymaker of the Year Award. The award is given internationally to someone who has "created, inspired or strongly influenced important policy or legislation."[287]
You got any of those?
You equate war with morality?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace