- This topic has 455 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 9 months ago by
njtosd.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 5, 2010 at 12:12 PM #547501May 5, 2010 at 12:32 PM #546554
briansd1
Guest[quote=davelj]
While Edwards and Sanford may not be “social conservatives,” they ran for office as Dedicated Family Men. That was part of their – and most politicians’ – platform. They are politicians and public figures and if part of your platform is the Dedicated Family Man, then that’s what you should live up to. Rightly or wrongly, that’s why many of their constituents voted for them. So, I don’t let Edwards or Sanford off the hook for their behavior. As private citizens, well that’s another story.In contrast, Barney Frank – whose policies I often disagree with – doesn’t hide from the fact that he’s gay. His constituents know it. I can respect that.
Edwards and Sanford, on the other hand, are lying hypocrites who got caught. Exit stage left, please.[/quote]
You make an excellent point.
But considering that hypocrisy is pretty much par for the course, you have no choice but to participate in the prevailing social compact.
For example, in Victorian society, everybody was wicked but it was important to carry yourself in a socially respectable way.
I think that it’s better to never to claim to be respectable, but to play the game well and let people presume what they wish to presume.
May 5, 2010 at 12:32 PM #546666briansd1
Guest[quote=davelj]
While Edwards and Sanford may not be “social conservatives,” they ran for office as Dedicated Family Men. That was part of their – and most politicians’ – platform. They are politicians and public figures and if part of your platform is the Dedicated Family Man, then that’s what you should live up to. Rightly or wrongly, that’s why many of their constituents voted for them. So, I don’t let Edwards or Sanford off the hook for their behavior. As private citizens, well that’s another story.In contrast, Barney Frank – whose policies I often disagree with – doesn’t hide from the fact that he’s gay. His constituents know it. I can respect that.
Edwards and Sanford, on the other hand, are lying hypocrites who got caught. Exit stage left, please.[/quote]
You make an excellent point.
But considering that hypocrisy is pretty much par for the course, you have no choice but to participate in the prevailing social compact.
For example, in Victorian society, everybody was wicked but it was important to carry yourself in a socially respectable way.
I think that it’s better to never to claim to be respectable, but to play the game well and let people presume what they wish to presume.
May 5, 2010 at 12:32 PM #547147briansd1
Guest[quote=davelj]
While Edwards and Sanford may not be “social conservatives,” they ran for office as Dedicated Family Men. That was part of their – and most politicians’ – platform. They are politicians and public figures and if part of your platform is the Dedicated Family Man, then that’s what you should live up to. Rightly or wrongly, that’s why many of their constituents voted for them. So, I don’t let Edwards or Sanford off the hook for their behavior. As private citizens, well that’s another story.In contrast, Barney Frank – whose policies I often disagree with – doesn’t hide from the fact that he’s gay. His constituents know it. I can respect that.
Edwards and Sanford, on the other hand, are lying hypocrites who got caught. Exit stage left, please.[/quote]
You make an excellent point.
But considering that hypocrisy is pretty much par for the course, you have no choice but to participate in the prevailing social compact.
For example, in Victorian society, everybody was wicked but it was important to carry yourself in a socially respectable way.
I think that it’s better to never to claim to be respectable, but to play the game well and let people presume what they wish to presume.
May 5, 2010 at 12:32 PM #547245briansd1
Guest[quote=davelj]
While Edwards and Sanford may not be “social conservatives,” they ran for office as Dedicated Family Men. That was part of their – and most politicians’ – platform. They are politicians and public figures and if part of your platform is the Dedicated Family Man, then that’s what you should live up to. Rightly or wrongly, that’s why many of their constituents voted for them. So, I don’t let Edwards or Sanford off the hook for their behavior. As private citizens, well that’s another story.In contrast, Barney Frank – whose policies I often disagree with – doesn’t hide from the fact that he’s gay. His constituents know it. I can respect that.
Edwards and Sanford, on the other hand, are lying hypocrites who got caught. Exit stage left, please.[/quote]
You make an excellent point.
But considering that hypocrisy is pretty much par for the course, you have no choice but to participate in the prevailing social compact.
For example, in Victorian society, everybody was wicked but it was important to carry yourself in a socially respectable way.
I think that it’s better to never to claim to be respectable, but to play the game well and let people presume what they wish to presume.
May 5, 2010 at 12:32 PM #547517briansd1
Guest[quote=davelj]
While Edwards and Sanford may not be “social conservatives,” they ran for office as Dedicated Family Men. That was part of their – and most politicians’ – platform. They are politicians and public figures and if part of your platform is the Dedicated Family Man, then that’s what you should live up to. Rightly or wrongly, that’s why many of their constituents voted for them. So, I don’t let Edwards or Sanford off the hook for their behavior. As private citizens, well that’s another story.In contrast, Barney Frank – whose policies I often disagree with – doesn’t hide from the fact that he’s gay. His constituents know it. I can respect that.
Edwards and Sanford, on the other hand, are lying hypocrites who got caught. Exit stage left, please.[/quote]
You make an excellent point.
But considering that hypocrisy is pretty much par for the course, you have no choice but to participate in the prevailing social compact.
For example, in Victorian society, everybody was wicked but it was important to carry yourself in a socially respectable way.
I think that it’s better to never to claim to be respectable, but to play the game well and let people presume what they wish to presume.
May 6, 2010 at 9:31 AM #546759jpinpb
Participant[quote=UCGal]It’s kind of like desert – some people will NEVER say no to desert. Even when they’re full. Even when they’re on a diet. Others decide it’s not worth the calories or that they’re full – even though the desert looks really yummy. And a small percentage really have no interest in desert ever – no sweet tooth. The folks who turn it down do not necessarily live with regret over turning down the desert.[/quote]
I think that’s a good analogy.
Generally speaking, I don’t think it’s the nature of many men to be monogamous and imo what they really should refrain from doing is getting married if they cannot remain loyal to their vows.
May 6, 2010 at 9:31 AM #546870jpinpb
Participant[quote=UCGal]It’s kind of like desert – some people will NEVER say no to desert. Even when they’re full. Even when they’re on a diet. Others decide it’s not worth the calories or that they’re full – even though the desert looks really yummy. And a small percentage really have no interest in desert ever – no sweet tooth. The folks who turn it down do not necessarily live with regret over turning down the desert.[/quote]
I think that’s a good analogy.
Generally speaking, I don’t think it’s the nature of many men to be monogamous and imo what they really should refrain from doing is getting married if they cannot remain loyal to their vows.
May 6, 2010 at 9:31 AM #547352jpinpb
Participant[quote=UCGal]It’s kind of like desert – some people will NEVER say no to desert. Even when they’re full. Even when they’re on a diet. Others decide it’s not worth the calories or that they’re full – even though the desert looks really yummy. And a small percentage really have no interest in desert ever – no sweet tooth. The folks who turn it down do not necessarily live with regret over turning down the desert.[/quote]
I think that’s a good analogy.
Generally speaking, I don’t think it’s the nature of many men to be monogamous and imo what they really should refrain from doing is getting married if they cannot remain loyal to their vows.
May 6, 2010 at 9:31 AM #547450jpinpb
Participant[quote=UCGal]It’s kind of like desert – some people will NEVER say no to desert. Even when they’re full. Even when they’re on a diet. Others decide it’s not worth the calories or that they’re full – even though the desert looks really yummy. And a small percentage really have no interest in desert ever – no sweet tooth. The folks who turn it down do not necessarily live with regret over turning down the desert.[/quote]
I think that’s a good analogy.
Generally speaking, I don’t think it’s the nature of many men to be monogamous and imo what they really should refrain from doing is getting married if they cannot remain loyal to their vows.
May 6, 2010 at 9:31 AM #547722jpinpb
Participant[quote=UCGal]It’s kind of like desert – some people will NEVER say no to desert. Even when they’re full. Even when they’re on a diet. Others decide it’s not worth the calories or that they’re full – even though the desert looks really yummy. And a small percentage really have no interest in desert ever – no sweet tooth. The folks who turn it down do not necessarily live with regret over turning down the desert.[/quote]
I think that’s a good analogy.
Generally speaking, I don’t think it’s the nature of many men to be monogamous and imo what they really should refrain from doing is getting married if they cannot remain loyal to their vows.
May 18, 2010 at 7:11 PM #551312briansd1
GuestLiberals are allowed to have affairs. And they should be free to do so in the open.
But conservative Christians are not allowed, in my opinion. Here we have 2 married Christian Republicans having affairs:
The conservative Christian congressman’s chief of staff, Renee Howell, confronted him last week over the rumored affair with Tracy Meadows Jackson, according to a source in the office. On Tuesday morning, two weeks after winning the primary, Souder publicly admitted the affair — without naming the staffer — and said he would resign effective
Friday.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/18/AR2010051803059.html?hpid=topnews
So they are meeting in the woods for sex. Sounds pretty desperate:
Less than a week before the May 4 primary, the sources said, anonymous callers told Souder’s Republican rivals he was regularly meeting a girlfriend for romantic trysts in state parks near Fort Wayne. One caller alleged that Souder and a staffer went together late at night to the remote and heavily forested Robinson Lake boat launch in Whitley County.
So this Congressman was for abstinence. If he can’t abstain himself (he’s a God fearing and church going guy), how does he expect teenagers and young adults to abstain?
That’s the height hypocrisy that davelj was talking about.
May 18, 2010 at 7:11 PM #551419briansd1
GuestLiberals are allowed to have affairs. And they should be free to do so in the open.
But conservative Christians are not allowed, in my opinion. Here we have 2 married Christian Republicans having affairs:
The conservative Christian congressman’s chief of staff, Renee Howell, confronted him last week over the rumored affair with Tracy Meadows Jackson, according to a source in the office. On Tuesday morning, two weeks after winning the primary, Souder publicly admitted the affair — without naming the staffer — and said he would resign effective
Friday.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/18/AR2010051803059.html?hpid=topnews
So they are meeting in the woods for sex. Sounds pretty desperate:
Less than a week before the May 4 primary, the sources said, anonymous callers told Souder’s Republican rivals he was regularly meeting a girlfriend for romantic trysts in state parks near Fort Wayne. One caller alleged that Souder and a staffer went together late at night to the remote and heavily forested Robinson Lake boat launch in Whitley County.
So this Congressman was for abstinence. If he can’t abstain himself (he’s a God fearing and church going guy), how does he expect teenagers and young adults to abstain?
That’s the height hypocrisy that davelj was talking about.
May 18, 2010 at 7:11 PM #551906briansd1
GuestLiberals are allowed to have affairs. And they should be free to do so in the open.
But conservative Christians are not allowed, in my opinion. Here we have 2 married Christian Republicans having affairs:
The conservative Christian congressman’s chief of staff, Renee Howell, confronted him last week over the rumored affair with Tracy Meadows Jackson, according to a source in the office. On Tuesday morning, two weeks after winning the primary, Souder publicly admitted the affair — without naming the staffer — and said he would resign effective
Friday.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/18/AR2010051803059.html?hpid=topnews
So they are meeting in the woods for sex. Sounds pretty desperate:
Less than a week before the May 4 primary, the sources said, anonymous callers told Souder’s Republican rivals he was regularly meeting a girlfriend for romantic trysts in state parks near Fort Wayne. One caller alleged that Souder and a staffer went together late at night to the remote and heavily forested Robinson Lake boat launch in Whitley County.
So this Congressman was for abstinence. If he can’t abstain himself (he’s a God fearing and church going guy), how does he expect teenagers and young adults to abstain?
That’s the height hypocrisy that davelj was talking about.
May 18, 2010 at 7:11 PM #552005briansd1
GuestLiberals are allowed to have affairs. And they should be free to do so in the open.
But conservative Christians are not allowed, in my opinion. Here we have 2 married Christian Republicans having affairs:
The conservative Christian congressman’s chief of staff, Renee Howell, confronted him last week over the rumored affair with Tracy Meadows Jackson, according to a source in the office. On Tuesday morning, two weeks after winning the primary, Souder publicly admitted the affair — without naming the staffer — and said he would resign effective
Friday.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/18/AR2010051803059.html?hpid=topnews
So they are meeting in the woods for sex. Sounds pretty desperate:
Less than a week before the May 4 primary, the sources said, anonymous callers told Souder’s Republican rivals he was regularly meeting a girlfriend for romantic trysts in state parks near Fort Wayne. One caller alleged that Souder and a staffer went together late at night to the remote and heavily forested Robinson Lake boat launch in Whitley County.
So this Congressman was for abstinence. If he can’t abstain himself (he’s a God fearing and church going guy), how does he expect teenagers and young adults to abstain?
That’s the height hypocrisy that davelj was talking about.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.