Palin had side order of Rice before marriage

[Skeptic]

One cannot claim that people shouldn't have sex outside of marriage and then have sex outside of marriage, and not have it be hypocrisy.

The problem with your definition is that by this definition we are ALL hypocrites. You believe lying is wrong, correct? Yet, you sometimes lie to save yourself embarrasment, for example (we all do). Are you thus a hypocrite about lying? Should you then, for instance, not tell your children not to lie?

Technically, perhaps, you are a hypocrite, but not necessarily so in reality: you really DO really think lying is wrong, you DO often tell the truth even when it's against your personal intrests, but you just couldn't summon the courage or strength to not lie that particular time.

On the other hand, someone who's a serial liar and constantly tells whatever BS story he thinks will help him is a hypocrite if he pontificates against lying, since clearly his behavior shows he doesn't really think lying is wrong.

Big difference. There is something quite "teenagery" about the whole outrage: "Dad told me not to sleep around but he had a girlfiend he had sex with when he was my age!". I'm not buying it.

 

[SezMe]

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.

I don't know what you'd accept, Zig. Let's try it this way: You hypothetically adopt the position that it was all about sex then give me what the real Zig would accept as evidence for the claim. Then maybe I'll understand what you are looking for.

 

[BenBurch]

The problem with your definition is that by this definition we are ALL hypocrites.

...

If you have sex out of marriage and you see nothing wrong with it and do not later pretend that you are a paragon of virtue then you are not a hypocrite.

Isn't that logical?

 

[RandFan]

The problem with your definition is that by this definition we are ALL hypocrites. You believe lying is wrong, correct? Yet, you sometimes lie to save yourself embarrasment, for example (we all do). Are you thus a hypocrite about lying? Should you then, for instance, not tell your children not to lie?

Technically, perhaps, you are a hypocrite, but not necessarily so in reality: you really DO really think lying is wrong, you DO often tell the truth even when it's against your personal intrests, but you just couldn't summon the courage or strength to not lie that particular time.

On the other hand, someone who's a serial liar and constantly tells whatever BS story he thinks will help him is a hypocrite if he pontificates against lying, since clearly his behavior shows he doesn't really think lying is wrong.

Big difference. There is something quite "teenagery" about the whole outrage: "Dad told me not to sleep around but he had a girlfiend he had sex with when he was my age!". I'm not buying it.

I rather agree with what you say. Except there's a problem. Palin has her teenage daughter traveling around extolling abstinence and using this cynically to exploit religious sentiments. This sentiment leads to an unhealthy focus on sexuality. It leads to ostracizing those who stray from religious prescription and stigmatizes those who don't conform. It's maladaptive and the people who are pushing the nonsense don't live up to it themselves.

It is their behavior and attitudes that are sophomoric and childish. Therapists and counselors take a mature and empirical approach. It's very important to expose the cynical hypocrisy of folks like Palin. Her views are not simply unrealistic as she and her daughter proves but they are demonstrably harmful.

Now, lets see if the unpopular girl who gets pregnant in Wasilla gets a book deal or does she get shunned and slut shamed? This is an easy one for me. Let's grow up and those who are pushing sexual purity let's ridicule them out of existence. Let's have a more grown up and frank conversation

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't know what you'd accept, Zig.

Let's put it this way. Suppose that Clinton had lied under oath about something other than sex. Would the Republicans have tried to impeach him over it? I think they would have. It's precisely because I think it was a political hit that I think it was NOT about sex. To argue that it was about sex, you'd need to claim that had Clinton perjured himself about something NOT sex-related, the Republicans would have let it slide. And I simply don't find that position at all credible.

 

[Tricky]

Let's put it this way. Suppose that Clinton had lied under oath about something other than sex. Would the Republicans have tried to impeach him over it? I think they would have. It's precisely because I think it was a political hit that I think it was NOT about sex. To argue that it was about sex, you'd need to claim that had Clinton perjured himself about something NOT sex-related, the Republicans would have let it slide. And I simply don't find that position at all credible.

Suppose the prosecutor asked Clinton under oath if he had brushed his teeth every night and he said he did, but they somehow showed proof that he had NOT brushed his teeth every night. Do you think they would have impeached him over that?

 

[RandFan]

Let's put it this way. Suppose that Clinton had lied under oath about something other than sex. Would the Republicans have tried to impeach him over it?

It depends.

What did he lie about? You are speculating in a vacuum. Bad thing to do.

• Discretion.
• Fiduciary and ethical responsibility to use such powers with discretion.

Just because there is a technical violation doesn't mean there must be or should be charges. If he lied to protect a family member over something minor, if he lied to keep a promise to a close friend about something benign, then no. They damn well shouldn't bring charges and they likely wouldn't as to do so is a rather obvious ethical breach of discretion and ethics to just about anyone. It's the sex that puts it over the top. The violation of trust to his wife. This tends to blur the lines in some people's minds and divert attention from the abuse of power and lack of discretion.

 

[mhaze]

.....You introduced the notion that Clinton was subjected to a criminal proceeding, not me. ......Clinton commited no "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". He had an embarrasing extra-marital affair, and then lied when answering a question he never should have been asked. That is the sum total of all you need know.

Perjury is a felony everywhere I am familiar with, and there is no "lower charge" say if the lying is about sex. For example there are variations of a charge for theft, based on the dollar amount stolen. Perjury is perjury. There are no shades of grey for me to consider. As you noted, the "jury" can and did consider the specifics of the situation. If you want to consider the decision making there politically biased, the go ahead.

But don't expect other people to share your views. According to your exact views, all kinds of crimes may be prosecuted, or excused, on a political basis.

 

[RandFan]

Perjury is a felony everywhere I am familiar with, and there is no "lower charge" say if the lying is about sex. For example there are variations of a charge for theft, based on the dollar amount stolen. Perjury is perjury. There are no shades of grey for me to consider. As you noted, the "jury" can and did consider the specifics of the situation. If you want to consider the decision making there politically biased, the go ahead.

But don't expect other people to share your views. According to your exact views, all kinds of crimes may be prosecuted, or excused, on a political basis.

A prosecutor who commits to prosecute every violation is both incompetent and unethical.

• Discretion.
• Fiduciary and ethical responsibility to use such powers with discretion.

Violations of the law are not binary. A prosecutor (or anyone in a position of authority to bring charges) must weigh the severity of the offense to determine if it is ethical and reasonable given the resources that must be spent ant the potential harm to the defendant. Not all infractions are equal. Your argument fails.

 

[Ziggurat]

Just because there is a technical violation doesn't mean there must be or should be charges.

I'm not suggesting he should or must be charged under any such scenario. I'm saying that he would have been. Do you get the distinction?

And that claim is not exactly flattering to Republicans either.

 

[RandFan]

I'm not suggesting he should or must be charged under any such scenario. I'm saying that he would have been. Do you get the distinction?

And I gave you reason and examples of why and when he wouldn't be charged. Please keep up. Read all of my posts.

And that claim is not exactly flattering to Republicans either.

Not relevant to my point.

 

[RandFan]

It depends.

What did he lie about? You are speculating in a vacuum. Bad thing to do.

• Discretion.
• Fiduciary and ethical responsibility to use such powers with discretion.

Just because there is a technical violation doesn't mean there must be or should be charges. If he lied to protect a family member over something minor, if he lied to keep a promise to a close friend about something benign, then no. They damn well shouldn't bring charges and they likely wouldn't as to do so is a rather obvious ethical breach of discretion and ethics to just about anyone. It's the sex that puts it over the top. The violation of trust to his wife. This tends to blur the lines in some people's minds and divert attention from the abuse of power and lack of discretion.

Just to recap.

 

[Ziggurat]

Suppose the prosecutor asked Clinton under oath if he had brushed his teeth every night and he said he did, but they somehow showed proof that he had NOT brushed his teeth every night. Do you think they would have impeached him over that?

Suppose that Bugs Bunny were a real rabbit. Would he like lettuce or carrots better?

Clinton was a lawyer. There's no way in hell he would let himself get trapped into a perjury claim over something so trivial. He'd either tell the truth, or hedge his claim ("to the best of my recollection", etc). So I'm operating under the entirely reasonable assumption that he would only ever lie under oath about something he felt was worth lying about, because anything else is irrelevant. Why you feel the need to delve into ridiculous fantasy scenarios is beyond me, but if you insist that I specify that I'm not dealing with the absurd, then so be it: I am now explicitly discounting the absurd.

 

[Ziggurat]

And I gave you reason and examples of why and when he wouldn't be charged.

By whom? By Republicans? Sorry, I don't see any realistic case of perjury where they wouldn't have tried to impeach. And if all you've got are cases along the lines of Tricky's, well, color me unimpressed.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Suppose that Bugs Bunny were a real rabbit. Would he like lettuce or carrots better?

Did you ever find Bugs Bunny attractive when he put on a dress and played girl bunny?

 

[RandFan]

Suppose that Bugs Bunny were a real rabbit. Would he like lettuce or carrots better?

Clinton was a lawyer. There's no way in hell he would let himself get trapped into a perjury claim over something so trivial. He'd either tell the truth, or hedge his claim ("to the best of my recollection", etc). So I'm operating under the entirely reasonable assumption that he would only ever lie under oath about something he felt was worth lying about, because anything else is irrelevant. Why you feel the need to delve into ridiculous fantasy scenarios is beyond me, but if you insist that I specify that I'm not dealing with the absurd, then so be it: I am now explicitly discounting the absurd.

Attorneys do idiotic things all the time especially when it comes to personal matters.

"a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client"

This is true because people are not always objective when they must make decisions concerning themselves.

 

[RandFan]

By whom? By Republicans? Sorry, I don't see any realistic case of perjury where they wouldn't have tried to impeach. And if all you've got are cases along the lines of Tricky's, well, color me unimpressed.

The examples are in red above and your confidence is misplaced but you are entitled to it.

 

[Tricky]

Suppose that Bugs Bunny were a real rabbit. Would he like lettuce or carrots better?

Clinton was a lawyer. There's no way in hell he would let himself get trapped into a perjury claim over something so trivial. He'd either tell the truth, or hedge his claim ("to the best of my recollection", etc). So I'm operating under the entirely reasonable assumption that he would only ever lie under oath about something he felt was worth lying about, because anything else is irrelevant. Why you feel the need to delve into ridiculous fantasy scenarios is beyond me, but if you insist that I specify that I'm not dealing with the absurd, then so be it: I am now explicitly discounting the absurd.

Because you asked the question. Now you want to wave that away? Was it a serious question or not?

Let's put it this way. Suppose that Clinton had lied under oath about something other than sex.

Okay, let's ask this then. Is there anything. Anything that they could have asked that you feel would have been so irrelevant as to not lead to perjury if he lied about it?

Oh, and as a lawyer, Clinton probably expected that in a real court that question would have been objected to and thrown out, and if not, the case would have been reversed on appeal. But this was not a real court. This was a witch hunt.

 

[RandFan]

Suppose the prosecutor asked Clinton under oath if he had brushed his teeth every night and he said he did, but they somehow showed proof that he had NOT brushed his teeth every night. Do you think they would have impeached him over that?

Suppose that Bugs Bunny were a real rabbit. Would he like lettuce or carrots better?

Excuse me but your glib Bugs Bunny nonsense doesn't obviate Tricky's example in any way.

 

[mhaze]

Because you asked the question. Now you want to wave that away? Was it a serious question or not?


Okay, let's ask this then. Is there anything. Anything that they could have asked that you feel would have been so irrelevant as to not lead to perjury if he lied about it?

This is ridiculous. When Clinton went into the hearing, the Repubs did not have some grand conspiracy to get him to perjure himself. Nobody knew what the outcome would be.

He perjured himself all by hisself.