Palin had side order of Rice before marriage

[mhaze]

That's really not entirely true.

First, what he did was not legally perjury......

Since he was brought up and convicted by the House on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, and no defense let alone a successful defense was made that he had not perjured, I think it reasonable to conclude that he legally perjured....

Whether that means the federal definition, or the definition used by the Congress, may slightly vary from that in your state is immaterial.

 

[RandFan]

To The Prudish GOP Hypocrites

To Sarah Palin and all of the GOP hypocrites who use "values" to be elected even when you and I both know you don't believe that ****.

SFW? Maybe not.

Enjoy.

And Zig

 

[Ziggurat]

I have no outrage

Fine, I'll use your own word. You have contempt. But that's still all you've offered: an emotional response. You had not previously provided any other reason for why you care about hypocrisy.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

Why would you tolerate it if they were consistent? Again, I see nothing beyond an emotional response from you. What's the logic here? You ALMOST offered one at the start of this post when you said that you don't think they believe in their values. That would indicate that the real problem is dishonesty, and that hypocrisy might be relevant as an indicator of that dishonesty. But then you set that logical reason aside, in favor of an emotional one. Anachronistic values remain tolerable if their advocates are consistent, and intolerable when their advocates are not. Why? Do you feel that they're getting away with something? That would be a sort of jealousy.

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.

And that would be better if they were consistent? I'm not seeing how. Moreover, that issue is no different, and no more important, for a politician than for anyone else.

 

[RandFan]

Fine, I'll use your own word. You have contempt. But that's still all you've offered: an emotional response. You had not previously provided any other reason for why you care about hypocrisy.

Only if you refuse to look.

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.

Hope that helps.

 

[RandFan]

Why would you tolerate it if they were consistent?

I didn't say I would tolerate it. I said I would hold them in contempy.

But then you set that logical reason aside, in favor of an emotional one.

This isn't about me. Please stop. Focus on the arguments and not attacking me.

And that would be better if they were consistent?

That's a straw man.

 

[RandFan]

• I would prefer principled leaders.
• I would disagree with moralizing politicians and I would find their efforts harmful but would at least find them morally consistent.
• I have contempt (which is my right) for hypocrites like Palin.

My message to them (and those who don't like contempt for politicians) is this NSFW

 

[Ziggurat]

I didn't say I would tolerate it. I said I would hold them in contempy.

You said "That would be tolerable if they actually lived up to those values". What does "tolerable" mean if not that you would tolerate it? And if you did mean something else, I hope you can at least see why I might interpret "tolerable" to mean that you would tolerate it.

This isn't about me. Please stop. Focus on the arguments and not attacking me.

I am focusing on your argument. And so far, all I see from your argument is that you don't like hypocrisy because it elicits an emotional response from you. You have not offered a logical reason for why hypocrisy is itself a problem.

 

[Ziggurat]

• I would prefer principled leaders.
• I would disagree with moralizing politicians and I would find their efforts harmful but would at least find them morally consistent.

I asked this before and got little response: why is consistency in error a virtue?

• I have contempt (which is my right) for hypocrites like Palin.

I never said you didn't have the right to feel this way. What I'm trying to understand is if there is anything beyond just a feeling. You could just say that there isn't, and I'd accept that as an answer. But you haven't done that, nor have you provided anything beyond that.

 

[RandFan]

You said "That would be tolerable[/hilite...

I can tolerate them as people and fight against their anchronisitc ideas. I don't tolerate bigots and hypocrites. Sorry if you don't like it but I don't care. We deserve better. Homophobes, racists, bigots and liars. They make for very bad politicians and they make bad policy.

...all I see from your argument....

Which is to say you ignore my arguments.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

To me, the issue isn't even when they (politicians) publicly condemn people whose behaviors they personally and secretly exhibit. It's when they seek to make them a legal matter.

 

[RandFan]

I asked this before and got little response: why is consistency in error a virtue?

Consistency is at least principled. I don't ask anyone to be perfect. I ask that they be honest and principled. I believe in the dialectic. I don't mind that people hold views that I believe are harmful so long as they contribute to the dialectic honestly. I'm not sure where you get this idea that all politicians must agree or only hold ideas that I agree with. I'm not so arrogant as to assume that all my ideas are perfectly correct. I believe in democracy of thought. I believe in the marketplace of ideas. I believe my ideals will win out.

What I'm trying....

I can't see that you are trying to do anything but insert a red herring. Sorry, the Palins and the Craigs and all of the hypocrites are going to be known and none of your silly nonsense is going to stop it.

Hypocrisy is still fair game at the JREF.

Thank goodness.

 

[Ziggurat]

I can tolerate them as people and fight against their anchronisitc ideas. I don't tolerate bigots and hypocrites.

But they're bigots even if they are consistent, aren't they? So why do you tolerate consistent bigots but not inconsistent ones?

We deserve better homophobes, racists, bigots and liars.

You want higher quality homophobes, racists, bigots, and liars?

Or did you mean that we deserve better than homophobes, racists, bigots, and liars? Because I don't see how a lack of hypocrisy keeps anyone from being a homophobe, racist, bigot, or liar.

Which is to say you ignore my arguments.

I've been trying to follow your arguments, but you aren't making much sense.

 

[RandFan]

But they're bigots even if they are consistent, aren't they? So why do you tolerate consistent bigots but not inconsistent ones?

I believe in the dialectic. I believe in the marketplace of ideas. Now, I'll gladly concede that if someone is homophobic or racist I won't tolerate that. However, I won't bust someone's chops who advocates sexual morality in general. If someone is about abstinance and chastity and monogamy then I think I can win that battle in the marketplace of ideas. Not that I support those things I just don't think they have any place in public policy.

You want higher quality homophobes, racists, bigots, and liars?

Typo. It's been fixed.

I've been trying to follow your arguments, but you aren't making much sense.

Right. When you got nothing attack you opponent.

 

[Ziggurat]

Consistency is at least principled. I don't ask anyone to be perfect. I ask that they be honest and principled. I believe in the dialectic. I don't mind that people hold views that I believe are harmful so long as they contribute to the dialectic honestly.

But then it's dishonesty that you really care about. Someone who honestly believes in some virtue, but fails to live up to it, can be honest even though they're a hypocrite. For example, an alcoholic might believe it's wrong to get drunk, but find themselves unable to stop even though they believe it's wrong.

Hell, you even brought up the issue of dishonesty earlier, and then dismissed it. If consistency is really that important to you, what am I to make of that?

Hypocrisy is still fair game at the JREF.

Yet you haven't offered a coherent explanation as to why. The closest you've come is the issue of honesty, but dishonesty is not actually synonymous with hypocrisy, and (per above) you haven't even been coherent on that topic either.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

I would argue that hypocrisy is a subset of dishonesty--specifically, being dishonest to or about oneself.

 

[mhaze]

And after all the above discussion at the core you have the Saul Alinsky Principle "Pin your opponent, personalize the issue". Which whoever is doing here with Sarah Palin is doing in this really bizarre way, because the issue is allegedly a "steamy interracial hookup". Thus it isn't Palin that's the bigot or exhibiting racial prejudice, but those here, accusing her in this context (or using her alleged behavior for generalizing the greater issue of importance to them at the moment).

Somehow, now there is a contrived group of homophobes and racists in the RIGHT because a left wing crank alleges Palin had an affair with a black?

That's nuts. Guess it fits on JREF then.

 

[RandFan]

But then it's dishonesty that you really care about.

It's one thing. A big one.

Someone who honestly believes in some virtue, but fails to live up to it, can be honest even though they're a hypocrite. For example, an alcoholic might believe it's wrong to get drunk, but find themselves unable to stop even though they believe it's wrong.

If the alcoholic is preaching the evils of alcohol and fighting for prohibition and trying to interject his weaknesses into public policy, well then, we have us a problem.

Are You finally getting the point?

Yet you haven't offered a coherent explanation as to why.

The hypocrites are the most cynical and the worst of politicians. There you will find deceit, duplicity obfuscation and an opportunist.

I've nothing to apologize for. I'll leave the apology to you. I suppose even slimy politicians need an advocate.

 

[RandFan]

Somehow, now there is a contrived group of homophobes...

http://www.badmouth.net/top-five-republican-gay-sex-scandals/

 

[RandFan]

BTW: I condemned Anthony Weiner for his mendacity and he never as far as I know was self righteous about sex.

Eliot Spitzer? A HYPOCRITE and I condemned him for what he did.

ETA: It amazes me that some people think hypocrisy is no big deal and we ought not talk about. Well, babies, I AIN'T going away.