Palin had side order of Rice before marriage

mhaze said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm on ignore so mhaze didn't see my post but for those of you who don't lack critical thinking skills. There is a reason prosecutors don't bring charges on every infraction. Chiefly those reasons are prosecutorial discretion and prosecutorial ethics.
 
Skeptic said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, we are all hypocrites. That doesn't mean we are all hypocrites to the same degree, that all hypocritic action is equally negative, or that it's always even bad to be a hypocrite.

A lifetime smoker telling people not to smoke because it's bad is being somewhat of a hypocrite, but an understandable and justifiable one. A similar thing might be going on with Palin. Perhaps she slept around a lot in her twenties, found it empty and draining, and so now advocates abstinence until marriage.

People also changer their minds about things. The problem arises when someone uses an action, or lack of an action, to degrade someone else or derive their justification from some trait that it turns out they are being a hypocrite about.

"I should be president because I'm a sexually moral person who didn't have sex before marriage," when in fact the person did, would be an example of a bad hypocrite. I'm not claiming this is the case here.
 
JudeBrando said:
lol... campaign slogan


Vicious and ruthless they are.
Click to expand...


Palin's critics are varied and cover an extremely wide range of views from many backgrounds, education levels, political leanings, and locations. There are a lot of them after all.
 
tyr_13 said:
Palin's critics are varied and cover an extremely wide range of views from many backgrounds, education levels, political leanings, and locations. There are a lot of them after all.
Click to expand...
I'll tell ya something. I like Palin. I theink she's attractive and has charming. I liked her first speech. Her problem, IMO, she's not ready for prime time at the national level and she's aligned with the religious right. And I really hate the hypocrisy and I do think she's a hypocrite.
 
Ziggurat said:
I never said that.

The sex was brought up during the lawsuit.
Click to expand...
Why? And why was it allowed. (The answer to that is "because it was a witch hunt that didn't follow normal court rules."

Ziggurat said:
It's rather hard to prove that he lied without proving that he had sex not brushed his teeth. 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...
ftfy

You've already admitted that there are some questions that shouldn't be considered perjury if they were lied about. I asked you why sex wasn't one of those questions. You have completely dodged that question. No, Zig, it isn't me making straw men. I'm asking straightforward questions. I've answered yours, but you won't answer mine.

Why was it necessary to ask about sex? I believe it is so they could get him to lie, not because it had anything to do with the charges against him. But I'm willing to hear other explanations.
 
tyr_13 said:
...
"I should be president because I'm a sexually moral person who didn't have sex before marriage," when in fact the person did, would be an example of a bad hypocrite. I'm not claiming this is the case here.
Click to expand...
Good.

Because what we have here is a baseless rumour by a "reporter" that she had an affair, used as a premise of fact by posters, who then join with with a baseless assertion that Palin was advocating some sort of virginal purity for adults.

On the shoulders of these two lies, intellectual midgets gibber mindlessly, peering far from their new vantage point, at least a few feet.
 
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.

I'm saying he was impeached for lying under oath, which is a crime, but you deceptively want to make it about something other than the actual crime that took place. An honest position would be to come out and say that he should not have been impeached for committing that crime. But you can't bring yourself to say that, because that would be to acknowledge that he was, in fact, impeached because he committed a crime.
Click to expand...

Absolutely and inarguably true, but some have other priorities.

And the Democrats can't stop saying "Lie! Lie!! Lie!!!" ever since...
 
Tricky said:
....Why was it necessary to ask about sex? I believe it is so they could get him to lie, not because it had anything to do with the charges against him. But I'm willing to hear other explanations.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I can't buy into that conspiracy. It'd be interesting to hear from some of those on the panel on that matter. But it seems a total stretch to assert they somehow started aiming for a long shot for entrapment into perjury.
 
Tricky said:
You've already admitted that there are some questions that shouldn't be considered perjury if they were lied about. I asked you why sex wasn't one of those questions. You have completely dodged that question.
Click to expand...

No, Tricky, I did not. I answered that rather explicitly. Since you evidently did not notice, or did not understand, I will quote what you evidently missed the first time:
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's what perjury means. So I've answered your question already. You have not objected to my answer, you have not disagreed with my answer, you have not claimed that my answer is insufficient. You simply missed it completely, assuming you didn't ignore it.

No, Zig, it isn't me making straw men. I'm asking straightforward questions. I've answered yours, but you won't answer mine.
Click to expand...

Your previous post contained no question at all. It was a declarative statement. It was an implied characterization of the contents of my post, but it did not do so with any accuracy. That makes it a strawman. And I did answer your question already (see above). It's not my fault you missed my answer.

Why was it necessary to ask about sex?
Click to expand...

When? During the impeachment? I've already answered that. During the lawsuit? Well, the lawsuit was pursued by a private party. You can make whatever conclusions you like about their motives, I really don't care.

I believe it is so they could get him to lie, not because it had anything to do with the charges against him.
Click to expand...

Let's assume you're right. Then it wasn't about the sex for them, that was just the tool they had at hand. It was always about the lie. Which... matches the position I've taken from the start.

I really don't get it, Tricky. You're just... not on your game today. You're arguing against positions which don't appear fundamentally different than your own, and missing other arguments completely.
 
JudeBrando said:
Of course not. Lots of people who have had sex with a black person disagree with Democrats.
Click to expand...
And plenty of people like to make a deal of it when it has no relevancy. Claiming that failing to note race makes them racists.

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.
Click to expand...
 
Ziggurat said:
That's what perjury means. So I've answered your question already. You have not objected to my answer, you have not disagreed with my answer, you have not claimed that my answer is insufficient. You simply missed it completely, assuming you didn't ignore it.
Click to expand...
All right then. I'm not going to keep trying, because you're never going to answer.
 
A Laughing Baby said:
You're really stretching on this one. There's plenty of things to condemn her for, policy-wise, and instead, you're choosing "she had a one night stand with a guy before she got married?" Really?
Click to expand...
Yeah, as much as I think she's the female Anti-Christ, I can't get too concerned over long ago pre-marital sex. Of course there is a pattern with the Palin family. Ever count back from the birth of her first child to her wedding day?
 
mhaze said:
Good.

Because what we have here is a baseless rumour by a "reporter" that she had an affair, used as a premise of fact by posters, who then join with with a baseless assertion that Palin was advocating some sort of virginal purity for adults.
On the shoulders of these two lies, intellectual midgets gibber mindlessly, peering far from their new vantage point, at least a few feet.
Click to expand...

She isn't for abstinence until marriage? I don't know if she was then, but isn't that her stance now? I could be mistaken.
 
JudeBrando said:
Of course not. Lots of people who have had sex with a black person disagree with Democrats.
Click to expand...

Lots of people who have had sex with a black person owned that black person as property. Lots of people who have had sex with a black person were also black themselves. (Black people being people after all.) Some black people are racists too. Some people are racist and see black people as less than human, but will still have sex with them.

That was the point that was being made, that the logic does not follow. It was not even remotely suggested that because Palin disagrees with Democrats, that makes her racist. I have no idea if she's racist.

It annoys me greatly when people 'play the race card' when they haven't actually been the victim of racism. What is starting to annoy me more is this pretending to be a victim of an unfounded accusation of racism when it didn't even happen.

Pretending to be a victim (of racism or an accusation of racism) makes it all the more difficult to stop the actual cases of those injustices.
 
Tricky said:
We're talking about people who condemn others for not living up to their moral values while at the same time not living up to their own moral values.
Click to expand...

Is saying that something is wrong "condemning others"?

Is it wrong to say that something is wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom