Palin had side order of Rice before marriage

It's true about Clinton that, "if it weren't sex it wouldn't be an issue", but he DID lie about it publicly (though he quickly owed up to it). But that is true for Palin's issue too: it she had (to use the same analogy) fished over the limit with Rice instead of had sex with him, it wouldn't be an issue, either.

But I still don't see what the issue is. Single woman has sex with single man. So? This "exposes" Palin's "hypocrisy"? Really?
 
I suppose it's a case of life imitating art. Of course in the movie, it's the eeeeeeeeeevil Rpubtardikkkans who try to destroy a female VP by dredging up deacades-old evidenceof having sex while not married.

But in reality, it's almost invariably the opposite: the chauvinistic attacks on female candidates for their alleged sexualy abnormality are usually from democrats towards republicans. Palin went through a demonization due to her personal life that is much worse than anything the fictional contender in the movie did.

Frankly, I think this shows Democratic desperation and fixation on Palin -- who isn't even a candidate -- more than anything else. This will only make the Democrats looks ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
It's true about Clinton that, "if it weren't sex it wouldn't be an issue", but he DID lie about it publicly (though he quickly owed up to it). But that is true for Palin's issue too: it she had (to use the same analogy) fished over the limit with Rice instead of had sex with him, it wouldn't be an issue, either.

But I still don't see what the issue is. Single woman has sex with single man. So? This "exposes" Palin's "hypocrisy"? Really?
Click to expand...

Yes it would expose hypocrisy if one's position was that single women shouldn't have sex with single men, but only the ones they are married to (then they wouldn't be single would they!). So if she held that position at the time then it would be hypocritical.

Not that I'm arguing it's important mind you, but that doesn't stop it from being hypocritical.
 
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...
And we all know that every case of perjury is vigorously investigated by congress. There's "no getting around" it. :rolleyes:
 
SezMe said:
And we all know that every case of perjury is vigorously investigated by congress. There's "no getting around" it. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I never said there was. In fact, I never said his impeachment was justified, or that it wasn't political. All I claimed was that it was about perjury, not sex. And you have offered nothing to suggest otherwise.
 
SezMe said:
I don't get it. You think she would advocate teaching abstinence-only to people in their 50's, say? Who else would you teach it to?
Click to expand...

That's rather the point: you don't teach adults. And what's being discussed here is her actions as an adult, with another adult. Children weren't involved in any way. So what she feels we should be teaching children is therefore a separate issue. And that's even ignoring the possibility that, over the span of decades, her beliefs may have changed as well.
 
Ziggurat said:
All I claimed was that it was about perjury, not sex.
Click to expand...
Of course it was about perjury. Because getting a hummer in the White House is not illegal.

Your stance here is like that of a biblical literalist. You want to read the words (the impeachment case) outside of context and meaning. Gingrich/Starr/Republicans wanted to hang Clinton by his petard. After four years and $50 million all they had was perjury about a stain. So they went with it. I'm unclear on why you can't see that.
 
tyr_13 said:
Yes it would expose hypocrisy if one's position was that single women shouldn't have sex with single men, but only the ones they are married to (then they wouldn't be single would they!). So if she held that position at the time then it would be hypocritical.
Click to expand...

(Shrug) Not much of a hypocrisy, either. No more hypocritical than eating at McDonald's despirte the fact that you publicly declare you are committed to healthy eating. In both cases you can be perfectly honest in your desire to always eat healthy or not have sex before marriage, but simply fail to live up to this ideal.

If you eat at McDonald's three times a day, or have wild sex with strangers every night when single, then... er... well, then you massively enjoy life, but apart from that, you are a hypocrite, becasue it is clear from your behavior that you don't really believe in what you preach. But merely not being perfect in following one's declared ideals is not hypocrisy in itself.
 
tyr_13 said:
Yes it would expose hypocrisy if one's position was that single women shouldn't have sex with single men, but only the ones they are married to (then they wouldn't be single would they!). So if she held that position at the time then it would be hypocritical.

Not that I'm arguing it's important mind you, but that doesn't stop it from being hypocritical.
Click to expand...

So IF the basic assertions have any factual basis then IF she held a certain moral position and didn't adhere to it THEN she'd be a hypocrite.

That's really important logic.

Your speculation know any bounds?
 
SezMe said:
Of course it was about perjury. Because getting a hummer in the White House is not illegal.

Your stance here is like that of a biblical literalist. You want to read the words (the impeachment case) outside of context and meaning. Gingrich/Starr/Republicans wanted to hang Clinton by his petard. After four years and $50 million all they had was perjury about a stain. So they went with it. I'm unclear on why you can't see that.
Click to expand...

See what? You have yet to make a real case that it was really about the sex. You've said that it was politically motivated, and I don't disagree. But you haven't been able to go beyond that with your claims. Everything else has been basically mind-reading on your part.
 
mhaze said:
???

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....

:)
Click to expand...

Nixon was charged with a crime? Which crime?
 
sarge said:
Nixon was charged with a crime? Which crime?
Click to expand...

He wasn't charged. He was pardoned of all crimes by President Ford in order to prevent charges. Ford as much as admitted that Nixon had committed crimes, but that he thought Nixon had "suffered enough".
Gerald Ford said:
Now, therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from July (January) 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
Click to expand...
However, several of Nixon's subordinates went to prison for doing the same things that he, quite provably, did. And the crimes which he clearly committed but was never charged for, were much more serious than the "gotcha" crime of covering up an affair that Clinton was charged for after a long witch-hunt turned up nothing serious.

To those who now claim that they only were concerned with Clinton's perjury and not with his "affairs", I give a hearty "BS". Clinton was defamed by Republicans for his affairs long before he was ever charged with perjury. Long long. Surely you won't deny this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom