Originally posted by Cleffy

I still think he deserves a high five, he has had an affair with one of the hottest women to be affaired with politically and he was only a state senator.  Only one I think outdid this was Kennedy with Monroe.  If that wasn't a bid for presidency, I don't know what is.

This intern is still young and naive too.  When she learns how easy it is for her to destroy political careers, I have a feeling she won't restrict herself to lowly state senators.  With her looks, I'm sure she'll find bigger fish to fry in the future.

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Faxxer

 

Who is defending this person?
 
I think you have Bill Clinton confused in there pop

---

 

Read back in the thread if you really don't know.

 

If you are just playing possum, it's transparent.

 

Porfat is for sure, and there's a few others who are hinting at excusing this behavior from him because "Dems do it too".

 

And btw: I DON'T think he should quit. His sex life and cheating has no ability on his skills (or lack of) for being a senator. But if he puts forth legislation that's moral in nature (gay marriage and such) I don't think he has a leg to stand on.

 

 

I am not sure why you think because he has a wandering penis that he should be fired or resign. That's just weird.

I'm not defending him.  I just don't give a shit what he did or didn't do.   What a state congress person does has no bearing on anything except for the people in his/her district or maybe state.

In before "Paul Stanley having a sex scandal? Looks like somebody had 'Nothin' To Lose'. That 'Parasite' either failed to have 'Great Expectations' or else that 22 year old was 'Hotter Than Hell'. But hey, you've 'Got To Choose' what you do in life and some of those choices go in 'Strange Ways'. Sounds like a classic case of a 'Christine Sixteen'... some guys just don't know how to keep their 'Love Gun' out of politics. Our government has really hit 'Rock Bottom'... without guys like this, we probably could have lasted '100,000 Years'."        imo

In all seriousness, I feel bad for her. Her close-knit circle of friends will likely feel strange that she's attracted to such an older man, she will likely go to counseling and have to retool her entire life. Poor wench. =\

Originally posted by Faxxer

wow, you guys walked right into that one.

 

So let me get this straight...

If a "republican" politician comes out against gay marriage, and is pro life and support family values....but then blunders and makes a fool of himself by betraying his family...he should be thrown out...and publicly ridiculed. (conservatives agree with this too btw)

BUT....

If a republican politician is moderate and supports gay marriage, pro choice, and pushes no prayer in public schools...he should stay in office if he betrays his family right? (I realize this might just be too much for you guys to handle)

OR...

If he is a democrat/liberal he has absolutely no reason to leave office over his choices of sexual partner, simply because he doesn't push morality on anyone else.  Ahh this is just fine then because his personal life has no bearing on his public life.

 

Wow.

I could say more, but I think the unspoken parts say more than the spoken parts.

What if it is a Democrat who barely gives any money to charity (say...Obama) and then he pushes programs to taxes others to do so?

If you don't FIRST give ALL your money to the poor, and you then try to force others to do so, you are a far, far worse hypocrite than anyone falling prey to sexual temptation. You are a liar, a hypocrite and a theif, and a bitof a thug to boot.

The reason Christians are Christians is because they know they are NOT Holy -- only God is Holy. We are fallen broken creatures and we need God's forgiveness and redemption.

Anyone who thinks Christians are "holier than thou" or that they even believe that has never been to a Bible study class and has probably never really walked into to many Churches. I see nothing in this man's history that shows he claims he is better than anyone -- just that he voted on his beliefs (which I do not agree with, but respect his right to them, as always).

Spreading the wealth around is not a "moral" idea? Of course it is. Democrats are as holier than thou as Christian Conservative republicans. If you are against affirmative action because you believe in property rights, they attack you on MORAL  grounds and call you a racist.

Want to keep money in the pockets of people who earned them they attack you as greedy.

So-called "liberals" are as "holier than thou" when it comes to taking people's money as conservatives are with sexual things. They BOTH suck equally -- they both are equally hypocrites.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Faxxer

wow, you guys walked right into that one.

 

So let me get this straight...

If a "republican" politician comes out against gay marriage, and is pro life and support family values....but then blunders and makes a fool of himself by betraying his family...he should be thrown out...and publicly ridiculed. (conservatives agree with this too btw)

BUT....

If a republican politician is moderate and supports gay marriage, pro choice, and pushes no prayer in public schools...he should stay in office if he betrays his family right? (I realize this might just be too much for you guys to handle)

OR...

If he is a democrat/liberal he has absolutely no reason to leave office over his choices of sexual partner, simply because he doesn't push morality on anyone else.  Ahh this is just fine then because his personal life has no bearing on his public life.

 

Wow.

I could say more, but I think the unspoken parts say more than the spoken parts.

 

What if it is a Democrat who barely gives any money to charity (say...Obama) and then he pushes programs to taxes others to do so?

If you don't FIRST give ALL your money to the poor, and you then try to force others to do so, you are a far, far worse hypocrite than anyone falling prey to sexual temptation. You are a liar, a hypocrite and a theif, and a bitof a thug to boot.

The reason Christians are Christians is because they know they are NOT Holy -- only God is Holy. We are fallen broken creatures and we need God's forgiveness and redemption.

Anyone who thinks Christians are "holier than thou" or that they even believe that has never been to a Bible study class and has probably never really walked into to many Churches. I see nothing in this man's history that shows he claims he is better than anyone -- just that he voted on his beliefs (which I do not agree with, but respect his right to them, as always).

Spreading the wealth around is not a "moral" idea? Of course it is. Democrats are as holier than thou as Christian Conservative republicans. If you are against affirmative action because you believe in property rights, they attack you on MORAL  grounds and call you a racist.

Want to keep money in the pockets of people who earned them they attack you as greedy.

So-called "liberals" are as "holier than thou" when it comes to taking people's money as conservatives are with sexual things. They BOTH suck equally -- they both are equally hypocrites.

 

What is so sad is that they don't even know they're like that. 

It's pathetic to hear an Amoral person criticize a person who tries to hold to a moral standard for their life.

I could care less about who these people have sex with.  Democrat or Republican doesn't matter.  Hell if she's hot I don't blame him for hitting it.  Maybe he wasn't getting any at home.  Nobody's business but theirs really.  I wouldn't friggin quit either.  It has nothing to do with his job.  He's not a priest.  So he says one thing and does another, they all do that anyway regardless of who they're screwing.

---

Originally posted by Mandarr
It has nothing to do with his job.  He's not a priest.  So he says one thing and does another, they all do that anyway regardless of who they're screwing.

---

So if he made a public policy, that people couldn't eat hamburgers and Mandarr REALLY, REALLY likes hamburgers but now can't eat any, that would be cool with you?

Even as he went out and got some of the juiciest, tastiest, sloppiest hamburgers on the sneak known to man violating his own edicts and morals as a lawmaker?

That's cool?

WTF do hamburgers have to do with who he's screwing today?

*Edit, yeah I know the dude is a hypocrite.  But like I said I don't care.  I didn't care when Bill Clinton was getting blown by Monica either.  I think he could've done better for himself though.  Hell this guy could be getting blown by Ted Haggart in the mens room or some crap and I still wouldn't care.  These are people not gods.  Am I really supposed to look up to people I don't even trust or know?

Hmmm, how would the urban dictionary label this one...

Playing a druid?

I know what you mean.  I really don't care if they sleep around with other women as long as their policy is good.  I think these topics should include pictures of the mistress to compare.

After seeing the rescent string of sex scandals.  Bill Clinton was a disgrace to the Oval Office.  He chose some ugly women to commit audultry with as Governor and President.  When you compare them to who this guy, Spitzer, and Paterson got with its a total shame.  I mean Paterson is blind and he had affairs with hotter women.

I admite, as a gay man, feeling pleasure in seeing this kind of hypocrite who is against same sex couples having the same rights as the others and defend the holiness of the traditional family, but then falling short than their own self made standards. It's a guilty pleasure, like eating too much chocolate.... and he had it coming...

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by Cleffy

I still think he deserves a high five, he has had an affair with one of the hottest women to be affaired with politically and he was only a state senator.  Only one I think outdid this was Kennedy with Monroe.  If that wasn't a bid for presidency, I don't know what is.

 

This intern is still young and naive too.  When she learns how easy it is for her to destroy political careers, I have a feeling she won't restrict herself to lowly state senators.  With her looks, I'm sure she'll find bigger fish to fry in the future.

OMG lol - well she has all ready taken the first step.   She is just the right age.  She has the looks.   She has the stomache for it - because she had an affair for free.   Why not get paid to do it!  First she needs to ditch the boyfriend.  Then hook up with one of the many companies, either in the US or abroad, that can get her into the escort business.   She could be making some good money.   LOL!   May I recommend She International - fabulous place to work for - if I do say so myself.   :)   She'll be rubbing shoulders with rich men and women from around the world in no time.  
 

I see the same people as usual are desperately attempting to change the topic to spread more right wing propaganda and trying to excuse what this man did. Keep it up guys, you may actually fool somebody with your poor arguments someday  if you keep trying hard enough.

Originally posted by Teala

Originally posted by Zindaihas

 This intern is still young and naive too.  When she learns how easy it is for her to destroy political careers, I have a feeling she won't restrict herself to lowly state senators.  With her looks, I'm sure she'll find bigger fish to fry in the future.

OMG lol - well she has all ready taken the first step.   She is just the right age.  She has the looks.   She has the stomache for it - because she had an affair for free.   Why not get paid to do it!  First she needs to ditch the boyfriend.  Then hook up with one of the many companies, either in the US or abroad, that can get her into the escort business.   She could be making some good money.   LOL!   May I recommend She International - fabulous place to work for - if I do say so myself.   :)   She'll be rubbing shoulders with rich men and women from around the world in no time.  
 

Oh, when I learned that it was her boyfriend who was blackmailing the senator, the first thing I thought was, "the boyfriend is history."  The fact that she was sleeping with the senator says she doesn't have much respect for her boyfriend to begin with.  And now that she's a poltical power broker, she doesn't have much use for him anyway.  She's going to move on to something bigger and he'll probably be working at the local slaughterhouse until he's 57.

When Republicans get busted cheating on their wives, people scream hypocrit and demand he resign.

When Democrats get busted, it's pretty much expected and no one really cares. Any "outrage" is just going through the motions.

So is it better to have standards and be a hypocrit or have no standards at all? 

---

Originally posted by abbaba

 So is it better to have standards and be a hypocrit or have no standards at all? 

---

See that's where you're wrong. No one claims they said they don't have standards, Dems certainly didn't say they didn't have any.

Dems don't think its a moral or religious problem if they sleep around. Probably most don't look at it as "I betrayed God" or something, lol. They do what they do because they want to, not because the "Devil made them do it". When Spitzer got caught, it wasn't about God. When McGreevey got caught it wasn't about God either. They felt they let the office down so they quit. Republicans hardly ever quit. Someone does dirt, Republicans say "QUIT!", then they do the same dirt and they say "God will forgive me; no need to quit."

The fact that Dems have DIFFERENT standards and don't push them on the public are better than being a hypocrite. Being that is just about the worst thing imaginable; especially the way the Bible views it.

---

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. (Matthew 23:14)”

“Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.”

“But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; / And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; / The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, / And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

“Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? / But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? / Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.”

---

Which is what most Republicans claim to go off Biblical morals daily and it's how they make laws. That's why they get double laughter (or double hellfire).

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by abbaba

 

 So is it better to have standards and be a hypocrit or have no standards at all? 

---

 

See that's where you're wrong. No one claims they said they don't have standards, Dems certainly didn't say they didn't have any.

 

Dems don't think its a moral or religious problem if they sleep around. Probably most don't look at it as "I betrayed God" or something, lol. They do what they do because they want to, not because the "Devil made them do it". When Spitzer got caught, it wasn't about God. When McGreevey got caught it wasn't about God either. They felt they let the office down so they quit. Republicans hardly ever quit. Someone does dirt, Republicans say "QUIT!", then they do the same dirt and they say "God will forgive me; no need to quit."

 

 

The fact that Dems have DIFFERENT standards and don't push them on the public are better than being a hypocrite. Being that is just about the worst thing imaginable; especially the way the Bible views it.

 

---

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. (Matthew 23:14)”

 

“Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.”

“But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; / And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; / The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, / And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

“Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? / But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? / Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.”

---

 

 

 

 

Which is what most Republicans claim to go off Biblical morals daily and it's how they make laws. That's why they get double laughter (or double hellfire).

The Democrats  force their "morality" on people worse than the Republicans could ever do. The only difference is the democrats think it is moral to forcibly take money from one group of people and give it to another. If you disagree, they call you greedy and evil.

They believe it is moral to force businessmen, property owners and educators to obey their "moral" social engineering schemes. If people resist their "moral standards" they are attacked as racist, sexist, or homophobes.

Since the Democrats believe screwing people is moral, as long as you have "good intentions," they don't have as much of a problem when one of their own gets caught at doing it literally. According to them, screwing people is good, even when it is against their will. That is their morality and yes, sadly, they are MUCH more consistent in that "morality" than the Republicans are.

Actually, this is more a conservative vs liberal thing than a republican vs democrat thing, but no matter, the dynamic is the same.

Nope, they are not hypocrites (in the context I am now drawing). They just believe in a backwards, post-Marxian "morality," which allows them to do anything they want as long as they bring about their  "Utopia." The ends justify the means and all that is the real religion they practice.

That all being said, since they are the ones devouring everyone's houses, and not just the widows, and they are smiting everyone, not just the servants, by confiscating their belongings without consent,  they receive an even greater damnation than anyone who boinks an intern.

Of course I believe Christ died for those sins as well; all sin is covered by the Blood of the Lamb -- but that's a debate for another time and place.

When democrats vote or make a decision, they do so out of a reason that has a noticable effect on society. When they tax you extra, they do so because it increases the functionality of society. Some (or many) republicans probably do this as well, everytime a road is built that you may not use, or a bridge is built that you may never cross or strengthening secuirity in a place that isn't relevant to you.  That is the motivation behind it, if this actually works is up for debate.

The republican in question however, didn't vote to improve the functionality of society. The only reason is his own personal moral code that he wanted to enforce on everybody that had zero effect on society .

Note: This is all a big stereotype so I'd like to note that ofcourse, not every republican and democrat thinks and acts the way i just described.

Originally posted by Gameloading

When democrats vote or make a decision, they do so out of a reason that has a noticable effect on society. When they tax you extra, they do so because it increases the functionality of society. Some (or many) republicans probably do this as well, everytime a road is built that you may not use, or a bridge is built that you may never cross or strengthening secuirity in a place that isn't relevant to you.  That is the motivation behind it, if this actually works is up for debate.

The republican in question however, didn't vote to improve the functionality of society. The only reason is his own personal moral code that he wanted to enforce on everybody that had zero effect on society .

 

Note: This is all a big stereotype so I'd like to note that ofcourse, not every republican and democrat thinks and acts the way i just described.

Yup, their morality -- or at least part of it -- is that the ends justify the means. They believe their idea is society is the good, the moral, the just, and they will screw whoever they have to to get there. In fact, however, their ideal society is universal slavery, and they don't care what rights they have to violate, who they must destroy, rob, kill or cheat to get there. Their means are their ends. Crush, kill, destroy.

Their real motivation is power, pure and simple, and they have concocted a perverted moralty to get there.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

When democrats vote or make a decision, they do so out of a reason that has a noticable effect on society. When they tax you extra, they do so because it increases the functionality of society. Some (or many) republicans probably do this as well, everytime a road is built that you may not use, or a bridge is built that you may never cross or strengthening secuirity in a place that isn't relevant to you.  That is the motivation behind it, if this actually works is up for debate.

The republican in question however, didn't vote to improve the functionality of society. The only reason is his own personal moral code that he wanted to enforce on everybody that had zero effect on society .

 

Note: This is all a big stereotype so I'd like to note that ofcourse, not every republican and democrat thinks and acts the way i just described.

 

Yup, their morality -- or at least part of it -- is that the ends justify the means. They believe their idea is society is the good, the moral, the just, and they will screw whoever they have to to get there. In fact, however, their ideal society is universal slavery, and they don't care what rights they have to violate, who they must destroy, rob, kill or cheat to get there. Their means are their ends. Crush, kill, destroy.

Their real motivation is power, pure and simple, and they have concocted a perverted moralty to get there.

I see you have taken Faxxer's propaganda habbit of using over dramatization to get your point across. Issues like universal healthcare is hardly destroy, or rob or kill.

To say their real motivation is power is downright silly. Their intention wasn't to get control, as I just explained, it's to have an effect on human society. Enforcing your religion onto other people without having any intention to improve society, that is a motivation for power.

Under which president did the US go to war with Iraq? ah yes, a republican president.  Thousands of Iraq citizens dead, thousands of american soldiers dead, and for what? The weapons of mass destruction that weren't there? Or was it to free Iraq?

What's that again? The end justifies the means?