Palin had side order of Rice before marriage

[RandFan]

Because of the politics of the matter. If they had gone after him for - following Tricky's example - lying about dental malpractice, the nation would have laughed at them. There are no dental peacocks strutting around. However, the capital is filled to overflowing with sexual morality peacocks. So is the ranks of the Reps (yes, and the Dems. But that is another thread.). So sex was the ONLY thing that could raise the hackles enough to change the impeachment efforts from inane to real.

Exactly, and many other examples also, iIf he lied to protect a family member over something minor, if he lied to keep a promise to a close friend about something benign.

But these don't fit Zig's thesis so he ignores them.

 

[SezMe]

So do you want to answer the question?

If not, why won't you answer it?

I'll answer your question if you answer mine.

I've addressed your example will you address mine?

That's not an answer.

I answered your question now answer mine.

YAnswer me and I'll tell you why you are wrong.

I'll get back to that when you answer my question.

Frick and Frack are jealous.

 

[RandFan]

Frick and Frack are jealous.

It's hard to have a one sided discussion.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think that absolutely they would have tried to impeach him for this. They would have tried to impeach him for just about anything. Maybe even lying about brushing his teeth, they were that desperate.

Then it sounds like you DON'T think it was about sex, but only politics. So as far as I can tell, you're actually in agreement with me, and I'm now confused as to why you've been arguing with me so vociferously.

I notice that you did not ask the larger question "Should he be impeached for perjury in this hypothetical case."

Indeed, I did not. And I have never claimed that he should have been impeached for what he was impeached for. I have only claimed that it was for perjury, not that it should have been.

If you wanted to know what I think should have happened, then that's the question you should have asked but I don't recall you ever did previously. I do not think he should have been impeached for that, but again, there's a difference between what I think did happen and what I think should have happened.

 

[mhaze]

OK, admit it, Republicans; You were only upset about Clinton's dalliance because you know that no cute 20-something intern is going to lock the door to YOUR office and want to play "hide the badger."

some of us might disagree with that....

 

[RandFan]

Then it sounds like you DON'T think it was about sex, but only politics. So as far as I can tell, you're actually in agreement with me, and I'm now confused as to why you've been arguing with me so vociferously.

I'm not confident they would have been so brash but they were desperate. The sex made it too tempting to pass up. Especially after the lead up with the salacious tape recordings and the blue dress, the sex made it a huge story. I can't see how anyone could ignore the sex aspect of the case.

 

[sarge]

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.

But you can have sex outside of marriage and subsequently claim that people should not have sex outside of marriage without being hypocritical. That seems the circumstance with Ms Nasaltwang.

 

[mhaze]

But you can have sex outside of marriage and subsequently claim that people should not have sex outside of marriage without being hypocritical. ....

And what seems to have been purposely ignored in this thread, that one could have sex before marriage and subsequently claim that people should not do so....without being hypocritical, quite the contrary, feeling that one had learned some lessons in and about life.

 

[Cain]

Once again Michigan cums out on top of Alaska. Protest all you want, it's right there in black and white.

 

[RandFan]

But you can have sex outside of marriage and subsequently claim that people should not have sex outside of marriage without being hypocritical. That seems the circumstance with Ms Nasaltwang.

Explain that to me? I guess anyone can alter their behavior and then claim that what they did before was wrong. I think to not be a hypocrite you gotta come clean, right? Otherwise you are being dishonest and hypocritical.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Once again Michigan cums out on top of Alaska. Protest all you want, it's right there in black and white.

The best joke I've seen so far is that someone was surprised that Glen Rice actually made a pass.

 

[thaiboxerken]

so why is her sex life the topic of conversation?

abstinence-only!!!!!

 

[RandFan]

And what seems to have been purposely ignored in this thread, that one could have sex before marriage and subsequently claim that people should not do so....without being hypocritical, quite the contrary, feeling that one had learned some lessons in and about life.

If she had come forward and admitted her indiscretion, maybe, otherwise no. Ain't going to fly. These people are just as human as anyone but they want to pretend that they are better and they get away with that by lying about. I call BS and hypocrite.

 

[Ziggurat]

Explain that to me? I guess anyone can alter their behavior and then claim that what they did before was wrong. I think to not be a hypocrite you gotta come clean, right? Otherwise you are being dishonest and hypocritical.

I don't think it's at all reasonable to expect people to declare everything they think they've done wrong in the past. Among other things, it's a colossal waste of time.

 

[RandFan]

So why is her sex life the topic of conversation?

abstinence-only!!!!!

Can you believe it.

This woman speaks at churches and spouts abstinence only nonsense and we're not supposed to point out that these hypocrites are just as human as anyone else? Sorry, you want your privacy and promiscuity respected? Here's a hint, stop shoving failed iron age religious prescription down our throats.

 

[Ziggurat]

If she had come forward and admitted her indiscretion, maybe, otherwise no. Ain't going to fly. These people are just as human as anyone but they want to pretend that they are better and they get away with that by lying about.

What did she lie about?

 

[RandFan]

I don't think it's at all reasonable to expect people to declare everything they think they've done wrong in the past. Among other things, it's a colossal waste of time.

When there anachronistic and discredited ideas are being foisted on the public and used to make public policy I think it irresponsible not to stand up and tell the truth.

 

[RandFan]

What did she lie about?

Let me clue you in about something, RandFan Zig. I don't owe you anything. I don't owe you an answer, I don't even owe you any kind of response.

So until such time as I choose to answer your question, you'll just have to wait. And if you can't deal with that, perhaps you should choose something else to do with your time.

Until you can treat me with the same respect I treat you (I have always answered your questions) then just keep referring back to this post. Fair enough?

 

[varwoche]

Kind of proves the extent of racial prejudice and bigotry on the far LEFT, to even dream that an interracial affair on the part of a right wing political figure would be "a scandal".

That's pretty much a straight out definition of racial prejudice.

Weird.

How did this pile of straw go unchallenged?

Those words tell us something about the sleezy person who wrote them, no more no less. The notion that they "prove" something about the "far LEFT" is beyond asinine.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Can you believe it.

This woman speaks at churches and spouts abstinence only nonsense and we're not supposed to point out that these hypocrites are just as human as anyone else? Sorry, you want your privacy and promiscuity respected? Here's a hint, stop shoving failed iron age religious prescription down our throats.

But it's okay if you are a Republican.