Palin had side order of Rice before marriage

[Ziggurat]

Nonsense. I'm pointing out that she had pre-marital sex which goes against the teaching of the abstinence until marriage programs that she endorses.

That's not quite what you said. You said she advocated teaching abstinence-only to children.

Rubbish. If there wasn't widespread outrage about the sex and the high-pressure investigations about the sex, there would have been no testimony under oath.

The testimony under oath came about because of a private lawsuit. Whatever the public reaction to that lawsuit was, it had nothing to do with the legal status of the lawsuit.

Pretending that it was all about lying under oath is intellectually dishonest.

It's interesting how you get to not only determine other people's motives in direct contradiction to their statements, but you get to ignore facts as well. Your privileges are enviable. Why, I can't see how you could ever lose an argument with these powers at your disposal.

 

[eeyore1954]

I hate to break it to Doug Powers, but having sex with a black person doesn't necessarily exonerate someone from being a racist.

You couldn't be more correct.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Same as my feeling but thats not how I felt about his lying under oath in a sexual harrasment suit.

There was no sexual harassment suit wrt to Monica Lewinsky. That's the lying under oath that got him impeached.

Again, claiming it was only about lying under oath is intellectually dishonest. If there was no outrage about extra-marital consensual sex, then there would have been no testimony under oath.

 

[Ziggurat]

And you don't think it would reduce your ability to preach to others about how important it is to be nice if it came out that you yourself weren't a nice person? You don't think it'd hurt your credibility on the matter?

If I were a jerk all the time, perhaps. But if I'm only occasionally a jerk, and nice most of the time, why would that make me hypocritical for advocating being nice? Why wouldn't you still evaluate that position on its own merits?

And this whole business of abstinence until marriage is somewhat different than being nice. It really depends on the person not having sex at all--not even once--before marriage. You could still be considered a nice person even if you've had occasional lapses. You cannot still be considered abstinent if you've had sex even one time.

If you sin even once, you are a sinner. Is the church stupid or hypocritical for advocating that people avoid sin, even though everyone is a sinner?

Evidently Christians are more subtle thinkers than you give them credit for.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's not quite what you said. You said she advocated teaching abstinence-only to children.

The programs she endorses teach abstinence until marriage. They teach it to children in schools, but what they teach is abstinence until marriage.

The testimony under oath came about because of a private lawsuit. Whatever the public reaction to that lawsuit was, it had nothing to do with the legal status of the lawsuit.

No way. But for the Lewinsky scandal, there would have been no impeachment.

It's interesting how you get to not only determine other people's motives in direct contradiction to their statements, but you get to ignore facts as well. Your privileges are enviable. Why, I can't see how you could ever lose an argument with these powers at your disposal.

You're saying it's wrong of me to challenge the BS claim that Clinton's impeachment was strictly about lying under oath, and that there was no relationship between the impeachment and the outrage over the Lewinsky scandal, a case of a consensual adulterous relationship?

 

[johnny karate]

Of course!!!! Expecially in the absence of any evidence of racism by said individual!!!

When you stop beating your wife, let us know.

If you'll wipe the flecks of outrage-induced spittle from your monitor, you'll see I've never actually accused Palin of being racist. Nor do I have any reason to think she is racist. I merely criticized a rather facile method of determining she was not racist.

 

[mhaze]

....it's wrong of me to challenge the BS claim that Clinton's impeachment was strictly about lying under oath....

Yeah.

Because the way you figure this out is by looking at the impeachment charges. Perjury and obstruction of justice.

End of subject.

 

[mhaze]

If you'll wipe the flecks of outrage-induced spittle from your monitor, you'll see I've never actually accused Palin of being racist. Nor do I have any reason to think she is racist. I merely criticized a rather facile method of determining she was not racist.

Okay, but I'm laughing pretty hard here. Sheesh...for this to constitute a scandal, you'd have to go back...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K38xNqZvBJI&ob=av2e

1985???? NO that won't work AT ALL.... where to go??? 1955?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwv-DxOPhSc

 

[sarge]

Yeah.

Because the way you figure this out is by looking at the impeachment charges. Perjury and obstruction of justice.

End of subject.

Nonsense.

Impeachment is a political process, and the Clinton impeachment was politically motivated. Had it not been specifically a sex scandal, the Republicans would not have risked such a dog and pony show. The Republican base just loves a good extra-marital sex show. Indignation with a boner, that's the Republicans.

 

[Ziggurat]

The programs she endorses teach abstinence until marriage. They teach it to children in schools, but what they teach is abstinence until marriage.

And when they become adults, they're old enough to figure things out for themselves. So, still no contradiction between what she advocated schools do and what she did.

No way. But for the Lewinsky scandal, there would have been no impeachment.

Sure, in the sense that if he never had sexual relations with Lewinsky, then what he claimed under oath wouldn't have been a lie.

But he did lie. He did commit a crime. And the only way to prove the crime he committed was to investigate his sexual relationships, because that's what he perjured himself about. Unless you want to dismiss perjury as irrelevant, then there was simply no getting around investigating his sex life.

You're saying it's wrong of me to challenge the BS claim that Clinton's impeachment was strictly about lying under oath, and that there was no relationship between the impeachment and the outrage over the Lewinsky scandal, a case of a consensual adulterous relationship?

I'm saying he was impeached for lying under oath, which is a crime, but you deceptively want to make it about something other than the actual crime that took place. An honest position would be to come out and say that he should not have been impeached for committing that crime. But you can't bring yourself to say that, because that would be to acknowledge that he was, in fact, impeached because he committed a crime.

 

[mhaze]

Nonsense.

Impeachment is a political process, and the Clinton impeachment was politically motivated. Had it not been specifically a sex scandal, the Republicans would not have risked such a dog and pony show. The Republican base jterust loves a good extra-marital sex show. Indignation with a boner, that's the Republicans.

The same kind of logic/rationalizaiton could be applied to lots of people indicted on criminal charges.

• "He was just being made an example of"
• "He got on their wrong side once too often"
• "The got him on those charges because they didn't have enough evidence for what they really wanted him for"
• "They only go after blacks for those type charges <<etc>>"

So, I'm not calling BS on you - not exactly. But your rationalization doesn't stand outside of normal legal process, or outside of the normal goings on. And in that context, it doesn't merit special consideration regarding cause.

Perjury and obstruction of justice were the charges, and they were merited by the evidence.

By the way - I would have looked the other way on the affairs, but not the charges. And he could have stopped the process at most any time by just coming clean about it. It would have only resulted in another case of Hillary throwing dishes at him.

She was reputed to be pretty good at that, too.

 

[eeyore1954]

There was no sexual harassment suit wrt to Monica Lewinsky. That's the lying under oath that got him impeached.

Again, claiming it was only about lying under oath is intellectually dishonest. If there was no outrage about extra-marital consensual sex, then there would have been no testimony under oath.

But didn't he lie under oath in the Paula Jones sexual harrasment suit about his relationship with Monica Lewisky? Claims of sexual harrasment are not minor things.

BTW I do not believe he should have been impeached for this.

 

[Brainster]

When I was younger, I did drugs. Now that I am older, I would certainly counsel young people not to do drugs. Is that hypocrisy, or just learning from my mistakes?

BTW, I do find just a little of this whole story to be another attempt at playing the race card from the bottom of the deck. The fervent hope of those pushing this story is that the fact that Palin had sex with a (gasp) Negro will turn off the supposed racists in the Republican Party. Anybody remember John Kerry and John Edwards just happening to mention that Dick Cheney's daughter was a lesbian?

 

[A'isha]

I'm not exactly fond of Sarah Palin, but the fact that this story is "news" has to be one of the saddest, dumbest things I've heard all day.

 

[sarge]

The same kind of logic/rationalizaiton could be applied to lots of people indicted on criminal charges.

• "He was just being made an example of"
• "He got on their wrong side once too often"
• "The got him on those charges because they didn't have enough evidence for what they really wanted him for"
• "They only go after blacks for those type charges <<etc>>"

Nonsense, again.

That Clinton was impeached had all to do with the identity of the majority party in the House, and next to nothing to do with the crime for which he was impeached. Perjury was the excuse, extra-marital sex and not being Republican was the actual affront.

So, I'm not calling BS on you - not exactly. But your rationalization doesn't stand outside of normal legal process, or outside of the normal goings on. And in that context, it doesn't merit special consideration regarding cause.

1. I am not the one rationalizing. Clinton was impeached for political purposes. Justifying the impeachment is a rationalization.

2. Charging the sitting President with a crime that goes routinely and regularly committed and unprosecuted is certainly outside the normal judicial goings-on.

3. It was, save one, a singular occurance in the history of this country. It merits special consideration for that reason alone.

Perjury and obstruction of justice were the charges, and they were merited by the evidence.

The investigation leading to the excuse to prosecute was unjustified. Everything that the investigation produced was also unjustified as an excuse to attempt to unseat the President.

By the way - I would have looked the other way on the affairs, but not the charges. And he could have stopped the process at most any time by just coming clean about it. It would have only resulted in another case of Hillary throwing dishes at him.

She was reputed to be pretty good at that, too.

It should not have been Clintons responsibility to stop a witch hunt that he was victim of. Congress served no legitimate role by investigating whether or not the President got a BJ. It was a political stunt, and nothing more.

 

[Ziggurat]

Anybody remember John Kerry and John Edwards just happening to mention that Dick Cheney's daughter was a lesbian?

Indeed. I think that rightly backfired on them, just like playing up the race angle is likely to.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not exactly fond of Sarah Palin, but the fact that this story is "news" has to be one of the saddest, dumbest things I've heard all day.

Indeed. One can think she's the worst politician in the US and still recognize this for gutter "journalism".

 

[Tricky]

I hate to break it to Doug Powers, but having sex with a black person doesn't necessarily exonerate someone from being a racist.

I think Strom Thurmond proved that a lot better than Sarah Palin.

 

[RandFan]

I don't care who she slept with. I don't give a damn that so many Republicans who are ant-gay are actually gay. I care that they are hypocrites. It's all this railing on and on about sexual sin. **** you. You are just as human as anyone. Leave the moralizing to god. If he doesn't like what people do whith their genitalia then he can tell them.

 

[mhaze]

Nonsense, again.

That Clinton was impeached had all to do with the identity of the majority party in the House, and next to nothing to do with the crime for which he was impeached......It was a political stunt, and nothing more.

Sorry, but the charges were legal, had substantial evidence, and were serious. The defendant should have not engaged in lying and obstruction. There would have then been NO CASE.

I've got no sympathy for your rationalizations. Some may, though. And I hear if you talk to felons in prison, they "all claim to be innocent"...