JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2009 07:20 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
If one has low or no standards for one's personal life, ...


"standards", you dare to speak of standards, Finn, Slkshock, you who support the butcher, torture and rape of innocents abroad. Pretty damn odd idea of standards.
slkshock7
 
  0  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2009 08:21 pm
@JTT,
I've don't ever recollect advocating butchering, torture or rape. Please enlighten me, JTT.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2009 08:49 pm
@slkshock7,
Quote:
I've don't ever recollect advocating butchering, torture or rape. Please enlighten me, JTT.


I can only imagine what JTT wrote that prompted your reply, because he is the sole member of A2K whom I choose to ignore

After a time of his following you around from thread to thread; nipping at your heels, you may decide upon using the option as well.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2009 09:59 pm
My oh MY, Dowd is good:
Quote:
As in all great affairs, Mark Sanford fell in love simultaneously with a woman and himself " with the dashing new version of himself he saw in her molten eyes.

In a weepy, gothic unraveling, the South Carolina governor gave a press conference illustrating how smitten he was, not only with his Argentine amante, but with his own tenderness, his own pathos and his own feminine side.

He got into trouble as a man and tried to get out as a woman.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/opinion/28dowd.html
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2009 10:14 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
You choose to ignore whatever doesn't meet your narrow views, Finn, and you hate to have it pointed out to you.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 04:18 pm
@hawkeye10,
Not at all a fan of Maureen Dowd. She is snide and supercilious, and usually her columns offer nothing but mockery of those people who have made her sh*t list, but I have to admit that this column was funny and even insightful.

0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2009 04:30 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
But I would still like to know why it is not hypocritical for Democrat to cheat on their spouse.


Because, cheating on your spouse is not in itself hypocritical. What makes it hypocritical is when you cheat on your wife after voting to impeach a president for the same error.

I'm not telling you what to do Finn, but I wouldn't waste a lot of A2K airtime on defending conservative hypocrisy on moral matters. These brouhahas aren't going to lose a presidency or a majority in the House and Senate.

I'm surprised you haven't noted a true despicable hypocrisy among Democrats formulating Obama's health plan. Pretending you're "making the sidewalks safe for the little guy" while manipulating legislation to reward your contributors from the AMA ,insurance groups and prescription drug lobby. Max Baucus comes to mind.
Mark my words, the health care reform fiasco could lose the Dems a lot of seats and even, a reelection
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2009 04:39 am
@panzade,
panzade wrote:

Quote:
But I would still like to know why it is not hypocritical for Democrat to cheat on their spouse.


Quote:
Because, cheating on your spouse is not in itself hypocritical.

That 's an error, Pan, unless the wedding vows allowed for multiplicity.
Thay ususally don 't.
Chicks tend to get upset about that.
It is hypocritical if the vows represent that u will not have any other chicks
and then u do so anyway.


panzade
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2009 04:51 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
That 's an error, Pan, unless the wedding vows allowed for multiplicity.

Oh, I'll grant you that David. But all along I've been writing about hypocrisy in the context of politics, not in the context of family dynamics...I think there's a measurable distinction.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2009 06:57 am
@panzade,
Also, its not hypocrisy to chet on your marriiage vows , its a transgression which is a sepoarate kind of sin. Now if you chated on your marriage vows while giving the outside appearance and you loudly denounced cheating, then that would be hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy must have a demonstrated bifurcation of actual commission of the"sinful" act and ones public protestations of that very act.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2009 09:20 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Also, its not hypocrisy to chet on your marriiage vows,
its a transgression which is a sepoarate kind of sin.
Now if you chated on your marriage vows while giving
the outside appearance and you loudly denounced cheating,
then that would be hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy must have a demonstrated bifurcation of actual
commission of the"sinful" act and ones public protestations of that very act.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2009 10:36 am
@panzade,
Quote:
I'm surprised you haven't noted a true despicable hypocrisy among Democrats formulating Obama's health plan.


Oh, I've noted Democratic hypocrisy on many issues.

I'm not defending anyone's hypocrisy. To some extent I think hypocrisy is an inevitable by-product of advocating standards for behavior, but I'm not going to assert that this exonerates people like Mark Sanford or John Ensign.

I think there's a lot to be said for the admonition of Jesus; "..let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and the old saying: "people in glass houses should not throw stones."

Republicans would be better served focusing on any actually pertinent issues involved in these transgression e.g. Jim McGreevy giving his unqualified lover a state job paying $110,000; Bill Clinton's lying under oath and to the American people.

I do think though that the transgression is worse than any associated hypocrisy. The latter just leaves a very bad taste in the mouth.

This notion of Republicans being especially hypocritical pre-dated the Clinton era and so it’s not simply a vote for his impeachment that gives rise to the charge.

During the 2007 Democratic convention, VP nominee John Edwards introduced his family to the audience. Edwards addressed his parents from the podium:

Quote:
"You taught me the values that I carry in my heart: faith, family, responsibility, opportunity for everyone. You taught me that there's dignity and honor in a hard day's work. You taught me to always look out for our neighbors, to never look down on anybody, and treat everybody with respect."


It seems to me that using your family and laying claim to values that include faith, family and responsibility in a political campaign is somewhat hypocritical of a philanderer who fathered a child with his mistress and then denied it.

Beginning in 2006 the Democrats embarked on the political strategy to "take back" the family values issue from the GOP. I doubt that this means they will begin to publicly criticize the transgressions of men like Elliot Spitzer
Bob Wise, and Jim McGreevy, but to the extent they lay claim to family values as a political strategy, they open themselves up to charges of hypocrisy. Having taken trounced the GOP and taken over DC, perhaps they will be less inclined to assume the risk associated with promoting their "family values."
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2009 11:04 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
At least John Edwards claimed to be defending "The Sanctity of Marriage".
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2009 02:25 pm
@ebrown p,
Yeah, John Edwards is a good example...the poops 'bout to hit the fan

Quote:
It isn't just Republicans like John Ensign and Mark Sanford who are making headlines for political sex scandals these days. Democrat John Edwards' name has resurfaced, thanks to a report that Andrew Young, a former close aide, is writing a bombshell tell-all book.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2009 02:28 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

At least John Edwards claimed to be defending "The Sanctity of Marriage".



While making a video... did Bill and Monica ever make a video?
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2009 02:45 pm
@H2O MAN,
Ewwww! I didn't know you were into that kind of video.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2009 02:50 pm
all politicians should undergo some form of chemical castration for the duration of their time in office

they should also be fitted with exploding neck collars, their constituents would have a button that activated the collar, each constituent would get one push off the button, if a majority of the constituents pushed their buttons, boom
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2009 02:54 pm
@djjd62,
I thought Ottawa had that in place?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Thu 2 Jul, 2009 09:40 am


Reap the World Wind Laughing
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jul, 2009 10:20 am
@H2O MAN,
nice one dude Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/05/2025 at 02:58:36