Another GOPer cheats!

[Free Soviets]

What bothers me in general about the tone of this conversation, however, is the notion that Ensign's sin arises more from the fact that "he campaigned on family values" and then had an affair, as opposed to the fact he had an affair. I appreciate that, as a supporter of Democrats, you feel a need to find some way to limit the damage from this kind of impropriety to Republicans, but do you truly see nothing wrong with the idea that it's okay to have no standards as long as you admit you have no standards, or at least don't claim to have any?

"no standards"? where does that come from?

[Menelmacar]

Well, think about it. If Democrats who have affairs or cheat on their taxes escape criticism because they don't campaign on being faithful in your marriage or paying your taxes, is the implication then that they don't support it? Or are they just being less vocal in their hypocrisy? I'm asking for a definition of where the line is drawn.

[Grave_n_idle]

Well, think about it. If Democrats who have affairs or cheat on their taxes escape criticism because they don't campaign on being faithful in your marriage or paying your taxes, is the implication then that they don't support it? Or are they just being less vocal in their hypocrisy? I'm asking for a definition of where the line is drawn.

'Hypocrisy' strikes a lot of people as bad.

Even worse, often, than just the 'sin' itself.

[Menelmacar]

I see. Yet why is the sin excused when there is supposedly no hypocrisy? I see an awful lot of active defense of Bill Clinton (in this very thread, even!), even to the point of calling the impeachment proceedings a 'persecution' (conveniently ignoring that it was about perjury, not adultery). Thus my original question. Is it thus okay, in the liberal mind, to cheat on your wife, or your taxes, if you never publicly claim others should not?

[Grave_n_idle]

I see. Yet why is the sin excused when there is supposedly no hypocrisy? I see an awful lot of active defense of Bill Clinton (in this very thread, even!), even to the point of calling the impeachment proceedings a 'persecution' (conveniently ignoring that it was about perjury, not adultery). Thus my original question. Is it thus okay, in the liberal mind, to cheat on your wife, or your taxes, if you never publicly claim others should not?

I didn't say the sin was excused - I said it tends to offend people more when the 'sin' is the face of hypocrisy.

When someone spends a large part of their life making a big deal about adultery, makes a big deal about adulterers... and then it turns out that THEY are not only adulterous, but WERE adulterous WHILE they were calling for punishment on others? That tends to strike people as worse than just adultery.

When someone attacks homosexuality, makes life more difficult for people that engage in homosexual activity - and then gets busted for the EXACT same thing, it strikes people as worse than just being homosexual.

Me - I don't care about adultery. I don't care about homosexuality. I don't care who fucks who, so long as they are all consenting and old enough. But I do care about making a big deal about other people, and then committing the same 'crimes' as them.

[Free Soviets]

Well, think about it. If Democrats who have affairs or cheat on their taxes escape criticism because they don't campaign on being faithful in your marriage or paying your taxes, is the implication then that they don't support it? Or are they just being less vocal in their hypocrisy? I'm asking for a definition of where the line is drawn.

everyone has their failings. that matters in some ratio to how it affects your performance at whatever it is you are supposed to be doing. which means it matters a lot, politically, when your failings are precisely the sort of thing you make a career out of persecuting in others.

[Parthenon]

I see. Yet why is the sin excused when there is supposedly no hypocrisy? I see an awful lot of active defense of Bill Clinton (in this very thread, even!), even to the point of calling the impeachment proceedings a 'persecution' (conveniently ignoring that it was about perjury, not adultery). Thus my original question. Is it thus okay, in the liberal mind, to cheat on your wife, or your taxes, if you never publicly claim others should not?

on a completely unrelated note...

Weren't you a moderator way back in the day and what has come of Sato, yut and that WBO? Been years since I have been on NS and I have stayed out of the rp forums for the most part after coming back.

[Farnhamia]

I see. Yet why is the sin excused when there is supposedly no hypocrisy? I see an awful lot of active defense of Bill Clinton (in this very thread, even!), even to the point of calling the impeachment proceedings a 'persecution' (conveniently ignoring that it was about perjury, not adultery). Thus my original question. Is it thus okay, in the liberal mind, to cheat on your wife, or your taxes, if you never publicly claim others should not?

Certainly not. Someone - not even you, I believe - brought up Geithner and his taxes, to which I replied that at least he hadn't run around making speeches about it, which is what Ensign has done. And you're right, maybe he should have resigned. Tom Daschele at least had the decency to withdraw his name when the funny business about the car and driver came out. Should he have even if no one found out? Yes, I think so.

The point is this, that the Republican Party claims to hold the moral high ground when it comes to the family and marriage and yet we continually see them caught in these kinds of affairs. It was mentioned, during the Republican debates last year that at one point, the only candidate for the nomination who had only been married once was the Mormon, whose religion originally allowed polygamy.

So, is it okay, in the conservative mind, to cheat on your wife, or your taxes, if you just call a press conference and say you're sorry?

[Menelmacar]

All right, I will accept the premise that your arguments in this thread are based solely on outrage at Ensign's hypocrisy in campaigning against something he himself did. I look forward, then, to your round condemnations of Barack Obama (and demands for his resignation, surely!) for his promises of ending the military tribunal system, only to continue it; his promises to withdraw entirely from Iraq within sixteen months, only to present no sign of actually doing so; how he 'loses sleep at night' over worries about the deficit, and often criticizing his predecessor over fiscal management, even while spending trillions and tripling the highest deficit Bush ever posted; his promises of no lobbyists in his administration, only to go back on that, too? The five days of public consultation before passing any piece of legislation, only to pass the biggest spending bill in American history in ten hours (and then taking four days to sign it?)

Moreover, how about Nancy Pelosi, for condemning the interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo as torture, even though she was briefed about them and was apparently fine with it at the time? And if she is right, where is Barack Obama with releasing the memos that would vindicate her? How about Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, grabbing ever more control of the banking sector while doggedly spending most of the past several years resisting attempts to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Can you point me to those undoubtedly very heated discussions?

On the other hand, while you are right to criticize Sen. Ensign, perhaps your eagerness to do so is borne more from the little 'R' after his name?

The point is this, that the Republican Party claims to hold the moral high ground when it comes to the family and marriage and yet we continually see them caught in these kinds of affairs. It was mentioned, during the Republican debates last year that at one point, the only candidate for the nomination who had only been married once was the Mormon, whose religion originally allowed polygamy.

And pretty much every candidate for president ever has been a Christian, whose religion originally allowed and even practiced torture. What's your point?

So, is it okay, in the conservative mind, to cheat on your wife, or your taxes, if you just call a press conference and say you're sorry?

Certainly not. I don't think I've actually defended Ensign here, nor would I. I'm arguing for some consistency in condemnations of politicians; Republicans are routinely pilloried for this sort of thing while Democrats will gladly circle the wagons for their own liars and hypocrites.

what has come of Sato, yut and that WBO?

I resigned from the moderation team due to time constraints with college and work. Yut is still going strong, SATO and the WBO still technically exist but are inactive enough as to be effectively dead.

[Treznor]

What bothers me in general about the tone of this conversation, however, is the notion that Ensign's sin arises more from the fact that "he campaigned on family values" and then had an affair, as opposed to the fact he had an affair. I appreciate that, as a supporter of Democrats, you feel a need to find some way to limit the damage from this kind of impropriety to Republicans, but do you truly see nothing wrong with the idea that it's okay to have no standards as long as you admit you have no standards, or at least don't claim to have any?

I don't particularly care about other people's values about my sexuality. It's not Ensign's business if I'm non-monogamous, homosexual or into kinky bondage sex. My values are my business and those I choose to interact with, no one else's. But Ensign made it his business, so while yes we deplore someone who promises to be faithful and then breaks that promise, we harbor special resentment against people like Ensign who think to make themselves an authority on my affairs.

People who have illicit affairs are unworthy of respect. People who engage in hypocrisy like Ensign's deserve to be hounded out of office.

[Free Soviets]

Can you point me to those undoubtedly very heated discussions?

the ones that have some relation to reality have sparked massive threads here (or at the old forum). or you could check out any random lefty blog...

[Trve]

I'm honestly surprised. A politician? Cheating on his wife? Unheard of.

Geez, nowhere near as newsworthy as a Treasury Secretary that cheats on his taxes...

Except, Geithner made a very common mistake, and when it was pointed out to him, payed his back taxes in full.

I doubt this GOP congressmen accidently stuck his dick in this woman.

But you know all would be well with this fellow, if he were just to change which side of the aisle he decided to sit on. Then it would only be sex and not newsworthy at all.

Go go crystal ball powers!

Who was the last Democrat to resign in shame over an affair d'coeur? Wilbur Mills?

Democrats dont campaign on the sanctity of marriage.

[NERVUN]

Just as an update, Ensign will not resign from the Senate (At least not yet), but he has resigned from the GOP Senate leadership position he held.

Meanwhile, the woman whom he had an affair with and her husband are a bit miffed that he went public with it without telling them ahead of time.

[Trve]

Meanwhile, the woman whom he had an affair with and her husband are a bit miffed that he went public with it without telling them ahead of time.

Poor baby.

[Iron Chariots]

Well, think about it. If Democrats who have affairs or cheat on their taxes escape criticism because they don't campaign on being faithful in your marriage or paying your taxes, is the implication then that they don't support it? Or are they just being less vocal in their hypocrisy? I'm asking for a definition of where the line is drawn.

It's not necessarily having no standards, it's being unwilling to legislate said standards upon other people.

The Republican Party, on the other hand, has made it its mission to legislate its morality upon other people. Thus, when republicans violate those values, yeah, it matters. However, somebody who says "the government has no place in your sex life" basically gets a free pass from me to participate in whatever consensual sexual activities they want, so long as said activities do not impact his or her ability to do the job.

[Trve]

Well, think about it. If Democrats who have affairs or cheat on their taxes escape criticism because they don't campaign on being faithful in your marriage or paying your taxes, is the implication then that they don't support it? Or are they just being less vocal in their hypocrisy? I'm asking for a definition of where the line is drawn.

It's not necessarily having no standards, it's being unwilling to legislate said standards upon other people.

The Republican Party, on the other hand, has made it its mission to legislate its morality upon other people. Thus, when republicans violate those values, yeah, it matters. However, somebody who says "the government has no place in your sex life" basically gets a free pass from me to participate in whatever consensual sexual activities they want, so long as said activities do not impact his or her ability to do the job.

Yeah, pretty much this. Once again, Pirated Corsairs hits the nail on the head.

[NERVUN]

Meanwhile, the woman whom he had an affair with and her husband are a bit miffed that he went public with it without telling them ahead of time.

Poor baby.

Well, it is very embarrasing. I mean it's kind of turning on your TV to find that someone else is telling the world that you cheated on your husband without telling you first about it.

[Trve]

Meanwhile, the woman whom he had an affair with and her husband are a bit miffed that he went public with it without telling them ahead of time.

Poor baby.

Well, it is very embarrasing. I mean it's kind of turning on your TV to find that someone else is telling the world that you cheated on your husband without telling you first about it.

I understand why she finds it embarassing, but I have no respect for cheaters, and so am not very sympathetic to her embarssment.

I feel bad for her husband, because he now has to be embarssed over it being announced on national TV that his wife is a cheating whore. But not for her.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

This will obviously get a lot of attention on Fox tonight. I'm sure Sean Hannity will be as outraged about this as he was about Edward's affair.

There is a faint odor of hypocrisy there, but to be fair Edwards was trying to run for President at the time. So it does tend to get people's attention. "OMG, he was having an affair while trying to become President? Who does he think he is, JFK?"

Of course, Edwards was also trying to portray himself as a husband, devoted to his cancer stricken wife... As far as I'm concerned, the Edwards affair is nearly the equivalent of Newt divorcing his second wife, while she was battling cancer. Not just an affair while separated from one's wife as is the current Ensign kerfuffle.

[Pope Joan]

The Dems should welcome him.

They have a history of liking guys who can't keep their pants up.

This stuff does not bother me; whatever happens in your bedroom does not affect me at all.

What bothers me is what the GOP are usually screwing, like our troops, the economy, the voters, minorities, workers....

[Treznor]

The Dems should welcome him.

They have a history of liking guys who can't keep their pants up.

This stuff does not bother me; whatever happens in your bedroom does not affect me at all.

What bothers me is what the GOP are usually screwing, like our troops, the economy, the voters, minorities, workers....

At least the Dems don't make it policy to condemn those who can't keep their pants up. They treat it like a personal problem, which it is. It's the Repubs who make a big deal about their "family values" before getting caught breaking them.

[Farnhamia]

All right, I will accept the premise that your arguments in this thread are based solely on outrage at Ensign's hypocrisy in campaigning against something he himself did. I look forward, then, to your round condemnations of Barack Obama (and demands for his resignation, surely!) for his promises of ending the military tribunal system, only to continue it; his promises to withdraw entirely from Iraq within sixteen months, only to present no sign of actually doing so; how he 'loses sleep at night' over worries about the deficit, and often criticizing his predecessor over fiscal management, even while spending trillions and tripling the highest deficit Bush ever posted; his promises of no lobbyists in his administration, only to go back on that, too? The five days of public consultation before passing any piece of legislation, only to pass the biggest spending bill in American history in ten hours (and then taking four days to sign it?)

Moreover, how about Nancy Pelosi, for condemning the interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo as torture, even though she was briefed about them and was apparently fine with it at the time? And if she is right, where is Barack Obama with releasing the memos that would vindicate her? How about Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, grabbing ever more control of the banking sector while doggedly spending most of the past several years resisting attempts to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Can you point me to those undoubtedly very heated discussions?

On the other hand, while you are right to criticize Sen. Ensign, perhaps your eagerness to do so is borne more from the little 'R' after his name?

The point is this, that the Republican Party claims to hold the moral high ground when it comes to the family and marriage and yet we continually see them caught in these kinds of affairs. It was mentioned, during the Republican debates last year that at one point, the only candidate for the nomination who had only been married once was the Mormon, whose religion originally allowed polygamy.

And pretty much every candidate for president ever has been a Christian, whose religion originally allowed and even practiced torture. What's your point?

So, is it okay, in the conservative mind, to cheat on your wife, or your taxes, if you just call a press conference and say you're sorry?

Certainly not. I don't think I've actually defended Ensign here, nor would I. I'm arguing for some consistency in condemnations of politicians; Republicans are routinely pilloried for this sort of thing while Democrats will gladly circle the wagons for their own liars and hypocrites.

what has come of Sato, yut and that WBO?

I resigned from the moderation team due to time constraints with college and work. Yut is still going strong, SATO and the WBO still technically exist but are inactive enough as to be effectively dead.

I have expressed my displeasure to the White House, in writing, over the military tribunals and lobbyists (and no, I'm not giving you copies, sorry). On the Iraq withdrawal, we'll see. We'll also see about the economic issues. Some of the spending was a continuation of the Previous Occupant's policies, and I haven't seen very many ideas coming out of the GOP beyond "cut taxes" and "cut spending" and "cut some more taxes." Their alternate budget was a little light on numbers, you may recall.

Call for Obama's resignation? No, but if he hasn't proved effective by 2012 I will reconsider my support of him.

One does rather wish Nancy Pelosi would just shut up sometimes. As for releasing documents about the classified intelligence briefing, that would be releasing information about a classified intelligence briefing and would put the President in an awkward position, wouldn't it?

As for Dodd and Frank, maybe they've learned their lesson about regulating the US financial sector. People can learn from experience, can't they? The GOP has apparently rediscovered fiscal conservatism.

Yes, both parties certainly have their liars and hypocrites. The Republicans are just as good at circling their wagons as the Democrats, and conservative talk-radio and television seems to have a never-ending supply of pillories itself. It's politics in the US. I could wish that it were more civil and that the party I support would think more before they act but we do the best we can and support people who we think will do a good job. What else can you do?

[Pope Joan]

The Dems should welcome him.

They have a history of liking guys who can't keep their pants up.

This stuff does not bother me; whatever happens in your bedroom does not affect me at all.

What bothers me is what the GOP are usually screwing, like our troops, the economy, the voters, minorities, workers....

At least the Dems don't make it policy to condemn those who can't keep their pants up. They treat it like a personal problem, which it is. It's the Repubs who make a big deal about their "family values" before getting caught breaking them.

True. Apparently the Dems are more worried about appearing to be hypocrits than the GOP are.