[/quote]Conservative pro-traditional marriage clown visited an escort service...go figure
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19685977/
So a senator that was very vocal against Clinton during his impeachment, wanted to get prayer in public schools, and helped lead the charge against fags and their attack on the purity of traditional marrage frequented an escort service. Or two.
So apparently everything is kosher because he asked god and his wife for forgiveness, although his wife previously said, on the topic of the Bill Clinton's affair, that she would pull a Bobbit on him.
We can only pray.[quote]
Why the hell don't more libertarians make themselves the forefront of the conservative movement instead of these guys?
Conservative pro-traditional marriage clown visited an escor
Moderator: Available
And remember Ted Haggard? I just saw "Breach," which had another good example in it (character not really different from that in "American Beauty," for that matter).
It's called reaction formation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_formation
It's called reaction formation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_formation
--Ian
This guy should be run out of town on a rail--heavily coated in tar and feathers for his hypocrisy.
But what really irks me is the partisan games going on.
By all rights the Dems---who made such a fuss about Clinton and his........."friends"
You know the folks that insisted that sex didn't matter, that it was no-ones busienss except the people involved in the relationship etc.
They can't have a problem with lying and breaking the law--Clinton did BOTH--and they still supported him.
I mean is the logic here that its somehow worse to visit a hooker than commit multiple adultery, use cigars to sex toys on your vastly younger and vastly less powerful intern?
By all rights and logic they should be standing up to defend this yahoo.
And by all rights and logic his Repub buddies should be denounceing him from every TV screen, newspapper and web-site.
After all the ink and venom they spewed about "values" and why lying to people was a hidious character flaw, and piously insisting that the "people deserved better."
Man I hate politcs and boy do I hate politico's.
But what really irks me is the partisan games going on.
By all rights the Dems---who made such a fuss about Clinton and his........."friends"
You know the folks that insisted that sex didn't matter, that it was no-ones busienss except the people involved in the relationship etc.
They can't have a problem with lying and breaking the law--Clinton did BOTH--and they still supported him.
I mean is the logic here that its somehow worse to visit a hooker than commit multiple adultery, use cigars to sex toys on your vastly younger and vastly less powerful intern?
By all rights and logic they should be standing up to defend this yahoo.
And by all rights and logic his Repub buddies should be denounceing him from every TV screen, newspapper and web-site.
After all the ink and venom they spewed about "values" and why lying to people was a hidious character flaw, and piously insisting that the "people deserved better."
Man I hate politcs and boy do I hate politico's.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Some people don't immediately grasp the difference between the Clinton Debacle and this clown. Or they'll never see a difference. But to me:
The difference is that Clinton wasn't trying to force his sexuality on other people.* He wasn't trying to make them have sex with an intern, do anything with a cigar, or in fact, know anything about it, and he wouldn't have lied about it if he hadn't been the subject of an ultimately money wasting and finding-less investigation.
THIS guy was saying, I am a "traditional" values guy and I want to force those values on you, but he was lying and felt those values should apply only to others. He was not just a liar but a fraud; he was using divisive politics for personal gain AND he didn't even believe them. THIS is why people were super mad at Rosie, for trashing handguns and then making sure her bodyguards had them, and its why the Boston policeman I saw cruise right through a red light (1 second AHEAD of the green!) and pull over to set up a speed trap (25mph on a major artery because the locals were politically active, not for any safety reason) especially infurtiated me.
*Conservatives who complain that OTHER people being ALLOWED to do something constitutes something being forced on THEM are lying, or using as much drugs as Rush or Bush in their heydays, and they have no idea what it feels like to have government step in between them and the people they want to love, mate with, or marry. IMHO.
The difference is that Clinton wasn't trying to force his sexuality on other people.* He wasn't trying to make them have sex with an intern, do anything with a cigar, or in fact, know anything about it, and he wouldn't have lied about it if he hadn't been the subject of an ultimately money wasting and finding-less investigation.
THIS guy was saying, I am a "traditional" values guy and I want to force those values on you, but he was lying and felt those values should apply only to others. He was not just a liar but a fraud; he was using divisive politics for personal gain AND he didn't even believe them. THIS is why people were super mad at Rosie, for trashing handguns and then making sure her bodyguards had them, and its why the Boston policeman I saw cruise right through a red light (1 second AHEAD of the green!) and pull over to set up a speed trap (25mph on a major artery because the locals were politically active, not for any safety reason) especially infurtiated me.
*Conservatives who complain that OTHER people being ALLOWED to do something constitutes something being forced on THEM are lying, or using as much drugs as Rush or Bush in their heydays, and they have no idea what it feels like to have government step in between them and the people they want to love, mate with, or marry. IMHO.
--Ian
IJ
Are you sure????
I'm told by my companies HR people that given in-equalities of power in ANY realtionship--consentual or otherwise between people of un-equal power--ESP ones direct subordent is grounds for termination and a lawsuit.
(Oh, and a couple of women DID in point of fact say that Clinton "force his sexulity" on them in the most direct means.)
Any number of people in the military engauged in complety consensual realtionships and paid for it with their careers.
The main difference between you and me IJ is that you seem willing to trash one guy/group based upon their politics and give another guy/group a "pass" also based upon their politics.
Me?
I am disgusted at BOTH of them-and I say so.
Are you sure????
I'm told by my companies HR people that given in-equalities of power in ANY realtionship--consentual or otherwise between people of un-equal power--ESP ones direct subordent is grounds for termination and a lawsuit.
(Oh, and a couple of women DID in point of fact say that Clinton "force his sexulity" on them in the most direct means.)
Any number of people in the military engauged in complety consensual realtionships and paid for it with their careers.
The main difference between you and me IJ is that you seem willing to trash one guy/group based upon their politics and give another guy/group a "pass" also based upon their politics.
Me?
I am disgusted at BOTH of them-and I say so.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
I've gotta go with cxt on this one, Ian. I don't see the difference.
Sex in the office is one thing. In some cases, quite literally.
But sex with a subordinate? An intern no less? Nope... shouldn't be done. Not even if the slut flashes her thonged butt at you.
Plus... Remember this?
I did not have sex with that woman.
There he is wagging his finger at the American public. The index finger of his left hand. How posed is that? (Note the wedding band.) He did this with his wife at his side. He also had his wife get up in front of a national audience and talk about a vast right wing conspiracy. Had it not been for some spilled sperm on a dress, the intern would have: 1) had sex with someone in an unequal power relationship, and 2) been made out to be a liar when it was Willie who was telling the bald-faced lies.
Yea, in a perfect world your little office treat keeps her mouth shut. But it isn't a perfect world, and Slick Willie certainly isn't. What do you expect when you put yourself in that position?
I'm pissed that a special prosecutor for Whitewater ended up charging Willie for lieing about sex in the oral... I mean oval office. IMO that was abuse of special prosecutor powers.
But...
They were BOTH slimebags. They were BOTH hypocrites. They were BOTH liars.
And cxt is right. Democratic slimeballs get a pass from the feminists. The Republicans get it with both barrels.
Ya wanna be a bad boy? Fine by me - on your time. Frankly I think it comes with the territory.
Just don't be two-faced about it.
- Bill
Sex in the office is one thing. In some cases, quite literally.
But sex with a subordinate? An intern no less? Nope... shouldn't be done. Not even if the slut flashes her thonged butt at you.
Plus... Remember this?
I did not have sex with that woman.
There he is wagging his finger at the American public. The index finger of his left hand. How posed is that? (Note the wedding band.) He did this with his wife at his side. He also had his wife get up in front of a national audience and talk about a vast right wing conspiracy. Had it not been for some spilled sperm on a dress, the intern would have: 1) had sex with someone in an unequal power relationship, and 2) been made out to be a liar when it was Willie who was telling the bald-faced lies.
Yea, in a perfect world your little office treat keeps her mouth shut. But it isn't a perfect world, and Slick Willie certainly isn't. What do you expect when you put yourself in that position?
I'm pissed that a special prosecutor for Whitewater ended up charging Willie for lieing about sex in the oral... I mean oval office. IMO that was abuse of special prosecutor powers.
But...
They were BOTH slimebags. They were BOTH hypocrites. They were BOTH liars.
And cxt is right. Democratic slimeballs get a pass from the feminists. The Republicans get it with both barrels.
Ya wanna be a bad boy? Fine by me - on your time. Frankly I think it comes with the territory.
Just don't be two-faced about it.
- Bill
Might be a bit of a stretch. Bill Clinton is, conveniently enough, left-handed. Gotta give him the benefit of the doubt there, "right" though you may be.Bill Glasheen wrote: There he is wagging his finger at the American public. The index finger of his left hand. How posed is that? (Note the wedding band.)
Mike
We're talking about two separate issues.
Clinton lied about his incident, and he shouldn't have had any relationship outside of his marriage unless Hillary ok'd it (even then, stupid move!! Stupid!).
This guy was also a nonstellar husband AND he tried to force his (faux) morality on others and use divisive politics to oppose other people's civil rights.
Cxt and Bill want to focus on the fact that both of these people are creeps, which is fine; they are.
Clinton was hurting a few people in his private life, which is wrong. I think it is MORE wrong to use your political power to hurt a class of people for lousy reasons. BUT, people tend to notice that more often when they are on the receiving end or remember being so--for example, Bill sure comes down against it when he gets caught speeding.
Clinton lied about his incident, and he shouldn't have had any relationship outside of his marriage unless Hillary ok'd it (even then, stupid move!! Stupid!).
This guy was also a nonstellar husband AND he tried to force his (faux) morality on others and use divisive politics to oppose other people's civil rights.
Cxt and Bill want to focus on the fact that both of these people are creeps, which is fine; they are.
Clinton was hurting a few people in his private life, which is wrong. I think it is MORE wrong to use your political power to hurt a class of people for lousy reasons. BUT, people tend to notice that more often when they are on the receiving end or remember being so--for example, Bill sure comes down against it when he gets caught speeding.
--Ian
IJ
And in terms of "force" you don't see Clinton promoting his libertine values on the rest of us?
Again, Clintons spin what essentially that "its no big deal what goes on behind closed doors, between consenting adults."
Which--hypocrosy aside--is pretty much what the OTHER nitwit thinks.
But even then, that our ahm......."leaders" often say one thing in public and do another in private is hardly "news."
Think of it like this--Lyndon Johnson was pretty good example of his upbringing, which means personally he was kind of a bigot--but PROFESSIONALLY he was a powerful force in the Civil rights movement.
So which agenda would you rather have him pushing in the people---his personal feelings or his professional ones?
You seem to drawing a false distinction.
And in terms of "force" you don't see Clinton promoting his libertine values on the rest of us?
Again, Clintons spin what essentially that "its no big deal what goes on behind closed doors, between consenting adults."
Which--hypocrosy aside--is pretty much what the OTHER nitwit thinks.
But even then, that our ahm......."leaders" often say one thing in public and do another in private is hardly "news."
Think of it like this--Lyndon Johnson was pretty good example of his upbringing, which means personally he was kind of a bigot--but PROFESSIONALLY he was a powerful force in the Civil rights movement.
So which agenda would you rather have him pushing in the people---his personal feelings or his professional ones?
You seem to drawing a false distinction.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
From my first post, in which I anticipated and answered your question:
"Conservatives who complain that OTHER people being ALLOWED to do something constitutes something being forced on THEM are lying, or using as much drugs as Rush or Bush in their heydays, and they have no idea what it feels like to have government step in between them and the people they want to love, mate with, or marry. IMHO."
It is not a false distinction. There is a big difference between being a lousy husband VS being a lousy husband PLUS trying to interfere with the ability of an entire class of people to enjoy their civil rights / pursuit of happiness.
There is a big difference between pushing for the ability of people to be able to do what they want, and pushing to prevent people from able to chose what's best for them.
"Gay marriage" can't be forced on anyone. If you don't want a gay marriage, don't have one! Laws limiting marriage (or its equal) to opposite sex couples ARE forced on everyone. When was the last time you walked into a courthouse and they told you you weren't allowed to form a union with the consenting nonrelative adult partner of your choice, solely because of your gender? I actually WAS told that in Charlottesville Virginia when I attempted to get a marriage license.
I know this is tricky for people to understand, but there's nothing like the weight of state power to make it crystal clear. Straight people haven't ever lived in a state where there's a $25k/5 year penalty for simple heterosexual intercourse written by a 100% homosexual state senate, so they don't know what that's like, but believe me, it would probably bug them. Or ask Bill about state power after a speeding ticket for traveling at a safe rate, and ask some stoner whose house could get reposessed because he had an ounce of a drug with no known lethal dose (ie, pot), ask a woman who needs a "partial birth abortion" but can't because the supreme court just allowd congress to overrule the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology on matters of abortion medicine.
"Conservatives who complain that OTHER people being ALLOWED to do something constitutes something being forced on THEM are lying, or using as much drugs as Rush or Bush in their heydays, and they have no idea what it feels like to have government step in between them and the people they want to love, mate with, or marry. IMHO."
It is not a false distinction. There is a big difference between being a lousy husband VS being a lousy husband PLUS trying to interfere with the ability of an entire class of people to enjoy their civil rights / pursuit of happiness.
There is a big difference between pushing for the ability of people to be able to do what they want, and pushing to prevent people from able to chose what's best for them.
"Gay marriage" can't be forced on anyone. If you don't want a gay marriage, don't have one! Laws limiting marriage (or its equal) to opposite sex couples ARE forced on everyone. When was the last time you walked into a courthouse and they told you you weren't allowed to form a union with the consenting nonrelative adult partner of your choice, solely because of your gender? I actually WAS told that in Charlottesville Virginia when I attempted to get a marriage license.
I know this is tricky for people to understand, but there's nothing like the weight of state power to make it crystal clear. Straight people haven't ever lived in a state where there's a $25k/5 year penalty for simple heterosexual intercourse written by a 100% homosexual state senate, so they don't know what that's like, but believe me, it would probably bug them. Or ask Bill about state power after a speeding ticket for traveling at a safe rate, and ask some stoner whose house could get reposessed because he had an ounce of a drug with no known lethal dose (ie, pot), ask a woman who needs a "partial birth abortion" but can't because the supreme court just allowd congress to overrule the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology on matters of abortion medicine.
--Ian
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
You are ignoring an important point, Ian. And perhaps it's easy for you to be blind in that way because you've never had to work for a large corporation with oppressive HR policies.
Lucky you!
Clinton didn't just break his marriage vows. That happens all the time, and probably happens a LOT more in politics which attracts a certain kind of conquest hungry, self-deluding, narcissistic personality.
Clinton had sex with his intern. Cxt is right. If he had been caught doing that on company time in Corporate America, he would have been fired. There are several reasons for that.
1) He used "company resources" for personal gain.
2) He had sex with a direct report. That happens from time to time. When it does and a company finds out about it, the reporting relationship is immediately severed. But it's more than that.
3) He had sex with a very young, impressionable intern. It's an abuse of power that feminists are quick to call to the attention of men - from the "wrong" party. Maybe that doesn't stir your emotions. But I promise you that a lot of parents of DC interns were quite concerned and upset at the president setting such an example in Washington.
4) He lied to Hillary about it and had her get on national TV and counter-attack. In doing this he humilated his wife as well as lied to his "counsel." (Hillary used her knowledge of law to help Bill maneuver through this.)
I find it interesting but not necessarily shocking that you are blind to this, Ian. Just thought I'd give you the "heads up" on it.
Er... Maybe that wasn't the best choice of words...
- Bill
Lucky you!
Clinton didn't just break his marriage vows. That happens all the time, and probably happens a LOT more in politics which attracts a certain kind of conquest hungry, self-deluding, narcissistic personality.
Clinton had sex with his intern. Cxt is right. If he had been caught doing that on company time in Corporate America, he would have been fired. There are several reasons for that.
1) He used "company resources" for personal gain.
2) He had sex with a direct report. That happens from time to time. When it does and a company finds out about it, the reporting relationship is immediately severed. But it's more than that.
3) He had sex with a very young, impressionable intern. It's an abuse of power that feminists are quick to call to the attention of men - from the "wrong" party. Maybe that doesn't stir your emotions. But I promise you that a lot of parents of DC interns were quite concerned and upset at the president setting such an example in Washington.
4) He lied to Hillary about it and had her get on national TV and counter-attack. In doing this he humilated his wife as well as lied to his "counsel." (Hillary used her knowledge of law to help Bill maneuver through this.)
I find it interesting but not necessarily shocking that you are blind to this, Ian. Just thought I'd give you the "heads up" on it.
Er... Maybe that wasn't the best choice of words...
- Bill
Yes, and in Clinton's case being fired would have been a big deal. They did try. Ah, the pleasures of those simpler days!Bill Glasheen wrote: Clinton had sex with his intern. Cxt is right. If he had been caught doing that on company time in Corporate America, he would have been fired.
For awhile, I used to have people say "Lewinsky" instead of "cheese" when taking a photo.Mike
Nobody is saying that Clinton's sex acts were better than this other guy's. The issue is that Clinton never made a big deal of promoting sexual morality. That's where the hypocrisy angle comes in. What Clinton did is unquestionably wrong, on a number of levels. Despite the immorality of his private life, at least wasn't banging the sexual-morality drum at the public. Does that make it okay? Of course not, but it's why Vitter is a hypocrite on this issue, and Clinton isn't. Clinton never advocated vociferously for sexual morality issues.
That is where the difference is. Maybe hypocrisy like that doesn't bother everybody, but certainly to some of us it's very off-putting when someone does things secretly in their private life, that they'd point fingers at and scream "immorality" about if they found someone else doing. Personally, I don't even mind "do as I say, not as I do" as long as the "as I do" part isn't being kept a secret. In other words, if you're going to get on your high horse about other people's indiscretions, you need to either get your own house in order first, or at least be honest about the ways in which your house isn't in order.
That is where the difference is. Maybe hypocrisy like that doesn't bother everybody, but certainly to some of us it's very off-putting when someone does things secretly in their private life, that they'd point fingers at and scream "immorality" about if they found someone else doing. Personally, I don't even mind "do as I say, not as I do" as long as the "as I do" part isn't being kept a secret. In other words, if you're going to get on your high horse about other people's indiscretions, you need to either get your own house in order first, or at least be honest about the ways in which your house isn't in order.
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
I understand what you are saying, Justin.
The issue here is the seriousness of the transgression, and not necessarily the dimension you're measuring it on.
On a personal note... Far be it for me to get in the way of sperm finding the eggs of their desire. Copulation happens. It's just Nature doing what Nature does in its intricate and complex ways. In a way, most Americans are voyeurs on all of this. They scream "Horrible!" and yet can't get enough of it. What else are they going to gab about during lunch if they can't stay home and watch the soap operas?
All we're doing here is discussing context.
- Bill
The issue here is the seriousness of the transgression, and not necessarily the dimension you're measuring it on.
On a personal note... Far be it for me to get in the way of sperm finding the eggs of their desire. Copulation happens. It's just Nature doing what Nature does in its intricate and complex ways. In a way, most Americans are voyeurs on all of this. They scream "Horrible!" and yet can't get enough of it. What else are they going to gab about during lunch if they can't stay home and watch the soap operas?
All we're doing here is discussing context.
- Bill
