Page 2 of 3
Re: I may be late on this, but...
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:25 am
by dubkitty
actually, Gingrich's nasty personal life is one reason why most Republicans don't want anything to do with him, and he has virtually no support in the polls. and i can give you counter-examples up the kazoo...literally: Rep. Gerry Studds had sex with underage House employees, was censured by the House of Representatives, refused to resign, and then was re-elected by his Massachusetts district, who apparently found pederasty acceptable as long as his politics were correct. and then there's Barney Frank, who had one boyfriend running a prostitution operation out of the home they shared (but claimed he knew nothing about!) before placing another on the board of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac where he helped engineer the housing crash.
and when you talk about moral flaws affecting a politician's ability to do their job, you might want to consider that more fully. Richard Nixon is the obvious example here, but i think Kennedy might be more illustrative. over the years it's been documented that JFK was an incorrigible womanizer, a prescription drug user and probably an addict, and involved in a variety of creepily corrupt political dealings of varieties ranging from the Texas Democrat and Richard J. Daley types to some pretty dark deep-cover stuff. i don't think it's entirely a coincidence that he also made a number of political moves which i find morally questionable, particularly the appalling decision to let the Bay of Pigs exile invasion of Cuba go ahead but withhold the US air support necessary to keep them from being slaughtered. and then there's the tiptoeing into Vietnam, the less-than-enthusiastic White House support for civil rights legislation, etc. if you can treat the people closest to you like things, like dirt, like something to be used and discarded, how much easier is it to do the same to people from whom you're already disassociated? as above, so below. or, alternately, by their works shall ye know them.
Re: I may be late on this, but...
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:30 am
by bigchiefbc
I don't think anything that Rep. Weiner did qualifies for "treating those closest to you like things, like dirt, like something to be used and discarded"
Re: I may be late on this, but...
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:31 am
by dubkitty
would you feel the same if you were his pregnant wife? really?
Re: I may be late on this, but...
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:34 am
by bigchiefbc
dubkitty wrote:would you feel the same if you were his pregnant wife? really?
I've never been a woman nor pregnant, so that's hard to say. But if my wife did the same thing, I would not describe it that way.
Re: I may be late on this, but...
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:37 am
by dubkitty
i should have used the word "betrayed" in the end of the larger post. it would have made the point.
which is: "Mr. Politician: if the people in your life who are supposed to be able to trust you the most can't trust you, what on Earth makes you think I should trust you?" that seems like a basic kind of principle to me, that if you fuck some people over you're likely to fuck other people over.
Re: I may be late on this, but...
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:39 am
by bigchiefbc
dubkitty wrote:i should have used the word "betrayed" in the end of the larger post. it would have made the point.
I wouldn't even consider it a betrayal. If I found out my wife was sending partially-undressed pictures of herself to randoms on the Internet, I'd be curious why and want to have a discussion about how satisfied she is, but I think you're (collective you here, referring to most of the media) blowing this WAYYYYYYYY out of proportion
Re: I may be late on this, but...
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:46 am
by dubkitty
you're certainly entitled to that opinion. conversely, i think you're way too tolerant of behavior that, given that he was doing quite a bit more than "sending...to randoms" but also engaging in extended online relationships with explicit sexual content, verges on virtual adultery if it isn't already over the line.
Re: I may be late on this, but...
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:53 am
by hbombgraphics
Mudfuzz wrote:hbombgraphics wrote:The odd thing is that many people that hold to today's Moral American standard base it on the Idea that Franklin and Jefferson set up the country based on God's principles, when they themselves couldn't live to today's standards.
It's unfortunate that Vegas porn stars don't hold to the same standards of non-disclosure as Mistress Slaves.
Why would they? The point of porn stars if to put it out there for everyone to see... It doesn't take a lot of brain power to figure out that if you want to do that type of thing that someone who's job is to put out putt'n it out might not be the best subject for your actions if you don't want them known...
So we can all agree that porn stars lack some discretion.
Re: I may be late on this, but...
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:54 am
by dubkitty
consensus!
Re: I may be late on this, but...
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:55 am
by Mudfuzz
hbombgraphics wrote:Mudfuzz wrote:hbombgraphics wrote:The odd thing is that many people that hold to today's Moral American standard base it on the Idea that Franklin and Jefferson set up the country based on God's principles, when they themselves couldn't live to today's standards.
It's unfortunate that Vegas porn stars don't hold to the same standards of non-disclosure as Mistress Slaves.
Why would they? The point of porn stars if to put it out there for everyone to see... It doesn't take a lot of brain power to figure out that if you want to do that type of thing that someone who's job is to put out putt'n it out might not be the best subject for your actions if you don't want them known...
So we can all agree that porn stars lack some discretion.
I think that would actually be a conflict of interest for them to have any.
Re: I may be late on this, but...
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:58 am
by hbombgraphics
dubkitty wrote:i should have used the word "betrayed" in the end of the larger post. it would have made the point.
which is: "Mr. Politician: if the people in your life who are supposed to be able to trust you the most can't trust you, what on Earth makes you think I should trust you?" that seems like a basic kind of principle to me, that if you fuck some people over you're likely to fuck other people over.
I get what you are saying that this proves he is untrustworthy, but we consistently isolate business from personal life both in our view of history and in our view of business. People like Donald Trump who can't keep a supermodel wife once the wig comes off are viewed as having a certain type of business savvy even when their personal life shows very flawed decisions. Why can't we view politicians the same way?
Also: In politics everyone is dirty, and nobody is trustworthy, so you pretty much have to pick the crook that represents you the best.
Note: Not trying to bring trump into the mix or say he represents any type of ideal, just saying that people with flawed judgement in one area of life are often given free passes if they excel in other areas.
Re: I may be late on this, but...
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:07 am
by McSpunckle
The Republican party only recently distanced themselves from Gingrich, and only because it's election season.
Barney Frank was investigated, but it wasn't a prostitution ring as you said. He befriended a gay prostitute (admittedly after paying for services), and used personal funds to hire him as a personal assistant, and kicked him out upon discovering that he was still escorting. Larry Craig led attempts to censure Barney Frank for that incident, and years later he himself was arrested for... soliciting gay sex.
The moral of this story is: Neither party is really much more sexually moral than the other-- but when the Republicans do it, it's significantly more hypocritical.
But, the topic of this thread is Anthony Weiner-- and what he did is reallllly insignificant. He sent pictures of himself and had sexual chats via internet. Not exactly the same thing. Sounds more like boredom when the wife's away than anything else-- not that it makes his actions OK. I know I'd be hurt if a love of mine did the same thing.
As has been pointed out, a lot of the founding fathers (I hate that term) weren't exactly sexually moral. MLK Jr. is known to have had affairs. It's a common character flaw in powerful men.
Re: I may be late on this, but...
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:10 am
by dubkitty
yes, in recent times the culture has "consistently isolate(d) business from personal life both in our view of history and in our view of business"; viewing the results, i don't find that's been either wise or effective.
Re: I may be late on this, but...
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:17 am
by dubkitty
McSpunckle wrote:Barney Frank was investigated, but it wasn't a prostitution ring as you said. He befriended a gay prostitute (admittedly after paying for services), and used personal funds to hire him as a personal assistant, and kicked him out upon discovering that he was still escorting.
The New York Times wrote:Mr. Frank's political career appeared doomed in 1989 after a newspaper reported that he had hired a male prostitute as a sexual companion and later as a household employee and that the man had used the congressman's Capitol Hill apartment to run a prostitution business. Mr. Frank admitted a relationship but denied knowledge of the prostitution ring.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/barney_frank/index.html
Re: I may be late on this, but...
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:03 am
by metalmariachi
I’m a firm believer in holding every one to the same standard.
But alas that ain’t so.
For years they over looked Teddy’s affairs and drinking problem because he was a Kennedy “poor Ted and the Kennedy legacy.
But we can go back in time (swirly lines and Theremin music)
Check out Wilber Mills and Fannie Fox
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 35,00.htmlIt’s always been there as well as misconceptions about the “founding Fathers”
Jefferson wasn’t a “devout Christian”
And the Pilgrims were thrown out of England and Holland because of being intolerant and wanting to force their beliefs on every one else.
MM