Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
network
network
All contents © Noisy Creek, Inc.
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Huh.
i amuse myself on this topic.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/…
Once he made marriage an issue in his campaign and platform he opened the door to scrutiny of his own sexual behaviors and morality.
If people are going to vote for him they should know if they are voting for a hypocrite.
I actually have no problem with Herman Cain's affair. (I would say "alleged," but he doesn't seem to be denying it.) I tried to see if Cain made comments about Clinton's affair and haven't found any, so I can't even charge him with hypocrisy. Unlike Gingrich, who infuriates me for not only engaging in serial affairs while trying to impeach Clinton for having an affair, but then later came up with the nausiating justification that it was because he "loved his country too much." Give me a fucking break.
I *do* have problems with the allegations of Cain's sexual harassment, though they remain unproven at the moment. But separate from all of that, I have plenty of other reasons to oppose Cain. His 9-9-9 plan is both econonomically and morally bankrupt. And his minisculy shallow knowledge about pretty much any domestic or international issues hardly qualifies him for a small-town city council, much less the presidency.
BINGO. It's not. Now the conservatives can talk about homosexuality for what it really is and leave what happens in the bedroom alone. What? You don't want to stop fantasizing about hot sweaty men pounding your ass? Hmmmm....
If he had a consensual affair, I really don't care. I actually sort of give him props for not denying it (unless he did? I'm really losing track.)
What I do care about are the multiple instances of alleged sexual harrassment. Arrgh.
Umm, let's compare-
Sitting president lies under oath in an ongoing civil lawsuit for sexual harrassment. He suborns witnesses in the same ongoing court matter to also lie under oath.
For that he got impeached.
On the other hand,a candidate for office says that whatever affairs he had were his business.
I don't see how they look the same at all.
For you conspiracy theorists, the president should be held to reasonable standards of law abiding conduct. (Scurilous partisan allegations notwithstanding, George Bush violated no laws as president. If it was felt he had a court should have been convened to adjudicate on those alleged violations.) Attempting to deny others their rights in court doesn't precisely meet that standard. The Democrat spin machine did a masterful job convincing the American public that it was just about sex, but it never was. It was about a person with no ethical integrity at all who happened to be the president perjuring himself. Most of you are too ignorant to understand this, but 5280 is supposedly an attorney for goodness sake. He at least has no excuse for not understanding why perjury is considered a blow at due process.
However, a consensual affair suddenly knocks the legs out from under that, because she's not accusing him of mistreating her. She's just saying he had sex. People are fully prepared to believe *that* about a man, for pretty much the same reason why they'd rush to discredit claims of abuse.
Telling a woman she hasn't right to murder unborn children isn't violating her privacy. Or at least, no more than telling me that I can't drink 7 Scotches and get behind the wheel of my truck. Our rights to privacy diminish when they begin to impact others.
Nor does telling someone that a state policy supporting heterosexual marriage and family violate a gay mans or devoted bachelor/bachelorettes right to express their sexuality by not marrying. It merely asserts a social perogative to protect and defend key structures in our culture.
Nor does asking of elected officials some measure of integrity and self control invade their privacy. I wouldn't put a man without such qualities in charge of a small company, never mind a country. I can't oversee each decision an elected representative makes. So I assess their beliefs and character in hopes that they'll make the right decisions even if they're difficult or cost them personally. A man who can't even control himself sexually is at least questionable in that regard.
No thanks needed for the clarifications. Call it an early Christmas (not Xmas, not 'the holidays, but Christmas) present. You're welcome.
I vote for democrats. I believe Clinton in January. I detested most of the GOP house leadership. But in August, I wanted that lying peice of shit Clinton impeached and dragged down into the mud he had flung a 22 year old smitten gal.
He fucking deserved everything he got. Every bit of it.
Private sex lives are evidence of poor character and inability to govern when a Democrat does it. But when a Republican does it, you'd better get your dirty sex-crazed mind out of their personal business.
I don't think it's hypocrisy anymore. It's cognitive dissonance. I think the half of Republicans' brains that says things is disconnected from the half that remembers what the said yesterday, and party supersedes all other value judgments. Republican dicks are private. Democrat dicks are a matter of the public record.
On another note, I'm hearing that this could be the last nail in Cain's campaign coffin. So how come a consensual extramarital affair is a deal-breaker, but non-consensual extramarital harassment was considered survivable.
George Bush did it right, handling this kind of thing. For all that he was a mediocre president, at least he was an honorable man.
When asked during the 2000 campaign about his prior drinking his answer was 'I drank. I don't anymore. What do you want to know?' When asked about his daughters being arrested for drunk driving while he was the president his answer was 'That's between me and my daughters. Next question.'
Clinton could have done this, and the Lewinski scandal would never have gained traction. His PR advisor even told him to do so, by the mans own account. The press will find out anyway, so tell them. That was this guys advice. It's a standard rule of handling embarrassing circumstances. Integrity doesn't mean never making mistakes, even ones of ethics or honor. It means owning up to them and learning from them. The problem with men who lack integrity like Clinton is that they don't in their excessive crookedness they can't even recognize straight anymore.
Clinton should have said "None of your cotton-picking business."
Thanks for the laugh.
What key structures, SB? And protect from what? What is the danger? What exactly might happen?
One really wonders if anti-equal-marriage activists ever ask themselves these questions. They just assume there is a danger somewhere -- there has to be -- and proceed from there.
Yes, but telling a woman she hasn't the right to abort a fetus IS a violation of her privacy. Just as it would to tell you you can't drink a bottle of 7-Up and get behind the wheel or your truck. Our rights to privacy cannot be diminshed when they don't impact others.
Which is the point -- you're comparing apples to oranges, SB.
Silvio Levy
At least I give you credit for starting interesting discussions even if deep down you obviously know that you're wrong and therefore unwilling to stick around and defend your positions in any kind of honest debate.
A person causing a woman to lose her unborn baby in a car accident or physical assault can be charged for that death.
But if a child is the product of unprotected sex and unwanted by the mother he or she immediately becomes a 'fetus,' subject to murder at the whim of the mother up until the point of birth.
I've heard of irregular verbs, but never of irregular nouns.
A potential mother, pregnant with an embryo or fetus, can choose whether or not to carry it to term. If she wants to keep it, she will keep it. If someone interferes with her right to keep it, that person can be punished for doing so. But if she does not want to devote her body to childbirth and her life to childrearing, she has every right to terminate the pregnancy. Get it? It's the woman's choice, not yours.
By the way, fetus is a medical term and refers in humans to a stage starting at approximately 9 weeks from conception (before which it is termed an embryo) and ending at birth. BY DEFINITION, it is still a fetus until it makes its way out of its mother, at which point it becomes either an infant or a miscarriage depending on its viability.
@50: That's because those who *want* the baby never say in the 3rd week of pregnancy, "We're going to have a miscarriage!"
There's also a certain saying about counting chickens.
There's an exception, though: If the repug's daughter or wife has inconvenient foreign matter above the cervix then a change of venue is in order. Before Roe vs. Wade a repug's female would fly to Sweden or Denmark (the airline SAS made a fortune off of knocked-up repug girls) to get 'r done, but now they can just visit a blue state.
Someday in the future people will write dissertations about the cognitive dissonance implied in answers like SB's. They'll really have to try hard to understand what threat people like him were afraid of. It just won't make sense.
A number of laws in the penal code are based on wrong assumption. Given time, they will be corrected.
If you feel insecure about the meaning of the word 'fetus' and whether or not it is some kind of slur, just look it up in a dictionary. It will tell you all you need to know.
I've heard that there is no blindness like that of those who won't see. You sound like a good example.