Palin had side order of Rice before marriage

RandFan said:
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.
Click to expand...

So the mere advocacy of a position you disagree with justifies an invasion of privacy. You can claim it's the hypocrisy, but you can't know if they're hypocritical until after their privacy is invaded.

You do realize that once you open the door to accepting such invasions of privacy on these grounds, you won't be able to close the door for other grounds. And what for? Do you actually think her base will desert her over this? Do you actually think this will change anyone's mind? The only purpose served here that I see is vindictiveness and profit.
 
varwoche said:
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.
Click to expand...
Okay, I will grant you that. Let us go with the subset of the far left who is posting on this thread, then.
 
mhaze said:
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.

varwoche said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Failing to say something about race proves... what? What exactly? What does it say about those who didn't talk about it? Someone help me with this.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
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?
Click to expand...

You are free to make your own choices. But I don't view answers containing insults as displays of respect. And insulting me until I show you the respect you think you deserve isn't likely to produce your desired effect either.
 
Ziggurat said:
You are free to make your own choices. But I don't view answers containing insults as displays of respect. And insulting me until I show you the respect you think you deserve isn't likely to produce your desired effect either.
Click to expand...
Answer me or don't. I don't care.
 
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh sure, the impeachment was about politics, specifically a political witch-hunt, but instead of holding him prisoner on the scales and seeing if he weighed the same as a duck, they trapped him into discussing his sex life.

And if you believe, as you suggest, that the impeachment was all about politics, then do you agree that the diversion into his sex life was not a legitimate part of a the impeachment hearing? And if it was not, then why should the perjury matter? You say we're agreeing, but I still have my doubts.

Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...
So you believe that an unrelated-to-the-issue question that should never have been asked, whether it be about sex or brushing his teeth, should still be considered perjury if he lies about it? That is a very odd set of values you have there.
 
RandFan said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is not necessary to come clean in order to avoid being a hypocrit in this circumstance. It is necessary to not engage in the behavior subsequent to the declaration. No dishonesty is accrued by failing to disclose - unless one denies the behavior if confronted.

She may, however, lose credibility for failing to disclose the behavior. And of course she risks losing the confidence of those already ideologically pre-disposed to viewing her in the worst possible light.
 
sarge said:
It is not necessary to come clean in order to avoid being a hypocrit in this circumstance. It is necessary to not engage in the behavior subsequent to the declaration. No dishonesty is accrued by failing to disclose - unless one denies the behavior if confronted.
Click to expand...
I would agree with one very large and very glaring exception, don't make it a large part of your public personae. If it is then I think you have an obligation to come clean. If it's simply part of your personal philosophy and you don't make a big deal of it then fine.

She may, however, lose credibility for failing to disclose the behavior. And of course she risks losing the confidence of those already ideologically pre-disposed to viewing her in the worst possible light.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and it's made worse by her making a lot out of sexual purity and chastity. And I'll tell you, it makes me wonder if there is anything else?
 
varwoche said:
How did this pile of straw go unchallenged?
Click to expand...

Because I have him on ignore.

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.
Click to expand...

I wish there were more vocal Republicans just like MHaze. We'd win every election.
 
Tricky said:
And if you believe, as you suggest, that the impeachment was all about politics, then do you agree that the diversion into his sex life was not a legitimate part of a the impeachment hearing?
Click to expand...

How else do you prove perjury except to discuss what actually happened? And if your response is that this level of detail wasn't necessary, well, Clinton opened himself up to that with his "depends on what the definition of "is" is", and that whole mess about how he didn't think receiving oral sex counted as sexual relations. I could have done without the entire thing, but once it started, I don't see how it was going to play out any other way.

So you believe that an unrelated-to-the-issue question that should never have been asked, whether it be about sex or brushing his teeth, should still be considered perjury if he lies about it?
Click to expand...

Whether or not the question should have been asked, if the answer could affect the outcome of the case, then yes, it's perjury to lie under oath. And I think that the answer could very well have affected the outcome of the lawsuit. That is independent of whether or not it should affect the outcome (and the courts sometimes specifically exclude material that the know can affect the outcome). And it's also independent of whether or not he should have been prosecuted or impeached because of that perjury.

That is a very odd set of values you have there.
Click to expand...

That is a very odd conclusion to draw, since very little of what I have discussed has anything to do with my values, and I'm not seeing where you actually disagree with me about values.
 
BenBurch said:
If she runs again, you might find out about that. I've heard some things that if investigated and true would pretty much sink her as a candidate. (Though they shouldn't.)
Click to expand...

I would be surprised to learn that you had heard innuendo thatnturned out to be true. Palin has been long enough in the public eye and is intensely disliked by enough people that I suspect most of the discoverable skeletons are already on display.

My surprise would not rise to the level of shock, however. Frankly, I'll be interested only if there is visual evidence, preferably video.
 
sarge said:
I would be surprised to learn that you had heard innuendo thatnturned out to be true. Palin has been long enough in the public eye and is intensely disliked by enough people that I suspect most of the discoverable skeletons are already on display.

My surprise would not rise to the level of shock, however. Frankly, I'll be interested only if there is visual evidence, preferably video.
Click to expand...
Yes but by that logic this affair isn't true. Perhaps it's not. In any event, somethings take awhile to surface or get traction, Betty Broderick didn't make the Clinton headlines until near the end of his presidency.
 
Ziggurat said:
How else do you prove perjury except to discuss what actually happened? And if your response is that this level of detail wasn't necessary, well, Clinton opened himself up to that with his "depends on what the definition of "is" is", and that whole mess about how he didn't think receiving oral sex counted as sexual relations.
Click to expand...
So Clinton was the one who brought up sex. Huh. Learn something new every day.
 
Tricky said:
So Clinton was the one who brought up sex. Huh. Learn something new every day.
Click to expand...

I never said that.

The sex was brought up during the lawsuit. He lied about that sex. It's rather hard to prove that he lied without proving that he had sex. So how exactly did you EXPECT them to prosecute a perjury case, except to prove that what he claimed was not true? You're not making any sense. In fact, you seem to have abandoned your former argument altogether in favor of flippant straw men.
 
Ziggurat said:
I never said that.

The sex was brought up during the lawsuit. He lied about that sex. It's rather hard to prove that he lied without proving that he had sex. So how exactly did you EXPECT them to prosecute a perjury case, except to prove that what he claimed was not true? You're not making any sense. In fact, you seem to have abandoned your former argument altogether in favor of flippant straw men.
Click to expand...

Lest it not be clearly understood, perjury and obstruction of justices are charges between the defendant, and the court itself. They have to do with allowing the court to work efficiently, quickly and reach conclusions based on facts. Now if you ask the court to relax these standards when imprudent personal behavior is involved, all kinds of problems start to arise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom