Palin had side order of Rice before marriage

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.

So if they insert their moralizing into politics, but they live prudish lives themselves, then everything is OK? Or is that still just as bad? Other than your sense of outrage, what difference does that make?
 
I don't think it even follows that "they are hypocrites", since at the root of Christian religions is usually (as I best remember) concepts of redemption and forgiveness and so forth. They hold that humans are not perfect, and will fail.
 
Last edited:
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.

~~~~

:)

"It's not the crime, it's the cover-up," as was said about a previous President impeached for obstuction of justice for covering up a little matter of petty theft.
 
So if they insert their moralizing into politics, but they live prudish lives themselves, then everything is OK? Or is that still just as bad? Other than your sense of outrage, what difference does that make?

At least the way I see things is that if you're going to be a dick, be a CONSISTENT dick.
 
"It's not the crime, it's the cover-up," as was said about a previous President impeached for obstuction of justice for covering up a little matter of petty theft.
???

No, there was a crime - burglary - at the heart of that matter. In Clinton's case, if he'd came clean, there would have been NO CRIME.

Big, big difference.

Arguably, Nixon was smart to engage in further illegalities that he then got charged for. That's better than having a President indicted for burglary....

:)
 
Last edited:
???

No, there was a crime - burglary - at the heart of that matter.

Sure, but I think the point was that it wasn't Nixon's crime. It was Nixon's attempt to cover up something which might have been excusable if he was upfront about it that got him in trouble. Same with Clinton.
 
So if they insert their moralizing into politics, but they live prudish lives themselves, then everything is OK? Or is that still just as bad? Other than your sense of outrage, what difference does that make?
Do you mean to tell me that hypocrisy is perfectly okay with you? That you have the same respect for someone who practices what they preach as you do for one that does the same thing that they denigrate others for? Are you proud to be so disinterested in integrity?
 
So if they insert their moralizing into politics, but they live prudish lives themselves, then everything is OK? Or is that still just as bad? Other than your sense of outrage, what difference does that make?
I wouldn't have contempt for them. I can respectfully disagree with someone who is morally consistent. And you can shove your "outrage". Find some new rhetoric. It's really getting old. Hint, this isn't about me.

Now, do you have something substantive to contribute?
 
Last edited:
Do you mean to tell me that hypocrisy is perfectly okay with you? That you have the same respect for someone who practices what they preach as you do for one that does the same thing that they denigrate others for? Are you proud to be so disinterested in integrity?

No, that is not what I mean at all.

We should be able to evaluate a person's values on their own. Do we agree with their values or not? If not, then consistency between their actions and values can't reconcile their values to us, and inconsistency isn't needed to disagree with their values. If so, then the mere failing to live up to those values, regardless of any advocacy of them, is the real problem.

And we can evaluate a person's actions on their own as well. Do we think they acted correctly or not? If they acted incorrectly, would that condemn values they violated but which they shared with us? It shouldn't. Would their actions be excusable if their own values, in contrast to ours, permitted such actions? Again, we have no reason to accept that.

So how is not successfully living up to a moral value worse than not having that value at all? I don't see how it is. That doesn't excuse not living up to a moral value that they should live up to, but the problem there is the failure to live up to the value, not the hypocrisy. Why should I care about someone not living up to a value that I don't consider relevant?

You speak of integrity, but how, exactly, does integrity enter the picture here? Do you mean that hypocrites are advocating values they don't actually believe in, and that's why they act hypocritically? Perhaps. But in that case, the problem is that they're dishonest, and possibly that they don't really hold a value one thinks they should hold. So it's still not the hypocrisy per se that's the important issue.

The problem with this obsession with hypocrisy, absent any evaluation of the morals themselves, is that it panders to the lowest denominator. By elevating hypocrisy above the values themselves, one essentially rewards not having values, because then one cannot be hypocritical. This is a corrosive attitude. Worse, it is frequently employed cynically, by people who never cared about the value in question but merely hope to gain leverage from that value anyways.

And it is unnecessary.
 
Sure, but I think the point was that it wasn't Nixon's crime. It was Nixon's attempt to cover up something which might have been excusable if he was upfront about it that got him in trouble. Same with Clinton.

I don't know that. A charge of conspiracy to commit might have been brought, as best as I recall he had prior knowledge and approved of the operations.

Further, maybe some people would equate burglary and sexual impropriety as equally excusable, but I can't get to that point.
 
People weren't angry at Clinton for getting a BJ nearly as much as they were at him trying to hide it by committing perjury. To his credit he soon afterwards owned up to the truth with a commendably frank admission.
 
I wouldn't have contempt for them. I can respectfully disagree with someone who is morally consistent. And you can shove your "outrage". Find some new rhetoric. It's really getting old. Hint, this isn't about me.

If I want to know your opinion about an issue, it most certainly is about you. If you don't think your own opinion is relevant, then you're quite free to simply not respond.

And the reason you gave me is precisely because of your outrage. If that is sufficient reason for you, then fine. But you haven't provided any other reason than that for caring, so I can't "shove" your outrage unless I shove the only reason you've given me for why you care about hypocrisy.
 
People weren't angry at Clinton for getting a BJ nearly as much as they were at him trying to hide it by committing perjury. To his credit he soon afterwards owned up to the truth with a commendably frank admission.

That's really not entirely true.

First, what he did was not legally perjury, as you have to lie about something material to the case upon which you are deposed to have committed a crime. I know this first hand as I have been involved in a lawsuit where there was a whopper of a lie told and it was not perjury.

Second, if he had lied about taking more fish than legally allowed and did it under oath, nobody would have cared one iota and we would not have seen the spectacle of the House impeaching a President entirely for revenge for the government shutdown and the embarrassment of Newt.

If it hadn't been sex, it wouldn't have been a story.
 
We should be able to evaluate a person's values on their own. Do we agree with their values or not? If not, then consistency between their actions and values can't reconcile their values to us, and inconsistency isn't needed to disagree with their values. If so, then the mere failing to live up to those values, regardless of any advocacy of them, is the real problem.
Let me crystal clear.

I don't believe that they believe in their values. But that is not what bothers me. What does bother me is that they demean those with different values as being evil, sinful, corrupt. The focus on sin to demonize gays and marginalize those who don't share those particular values. They then attempt to use stigma to control people. Chastity pledges, monogamy pledges, nonsense about women staying home, etc.. It's anachronistic. That would be tolerable if they actually lived up to those values but they don't. What makes it worse is that they create an awful environment for their own family members. The girl who gets pregnant or the kid who comes out gay.

No, I think that is something worthy of scorn and ridicule. It amazes me that this kind of nonsense is still present in American society.
 
If I want to know your opinion about an issue...
I don't care if you ask me my opinion, I care if you turn the focus to me. If you make it about me. It's not about me. Further, accusing me of being outraged is entirely irrelevant.

And the reason you gave me is precisely because of your outrage.
I have no outrage, You are acting contrary to the rules. I've aske you once to stop it. :)

If that is sufficient reason for you, then fine. But you haven't provided any other reason than that for caring, so I can't "shove" your outrage unless I shove the only reason you've given me for why you care about hypocrisy.
That they are hypocrites is sufficient reason. I've given others though.
 
Last edited:
So if they insert their moralizing into politics, but they live prudish lives themselves, then everything is OK?

No. I would still disagree with their moralizing into politics, but I would not consider them to be hypocritical or inconsistent.

Just because they are guilty of one thing doesn't mean they aren't also guilty of another. (ETA: And conversely, clearing them of one wrong doesn't clear them of the other.)
 

Back
Top Bottom