Palin had side order of Rice before marriage

You go Sarah

junglefever.jpg
 
Tricky said:
All right then. I'm not going to keep trying, because you're never going to answer.
Click to expand...

I did answer. If you lie about something that might affect the outcome of a case, that's perjury. I think Clinton's lie satisfies this requirement. Now, you could disagree with me about what constitutes perjury (but you did not), or you can disagree with me about whether or not that lie might affect the outcome of the case (but you did not). But when you say that I didn't answer, you're simply wrong. I did answer, directly and explicitly. You are evidently unsatisfied with my answer, but will not say why.

Your position makes no sense.
 
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...
Great point. Never thought of it that way. Agreed.
 
Tyr -- we agree 100%. Our only disagreement is whether the word "hypocrite" should apply also to this "technical" sense or only to "serious" cases. I think it shouldn't because it then makes us all hypocrites -- which might be true, but the word then loses all its meaning through overuse.

I think this is something many Democrats don't understand. How can the public vote for someone who supports personal morality when he is such a hypocrite? The public is smarter than them on this point, and is willing to forgive (some degree of) hypocrisy by those who support personal morality -- because we all fail in personal morality sometimes, and this doesn't mean we shouldn't defend it. The reason the public supports this? The alternative -- not defending personal morality, or considering it bad, lest one be a "hypocrite" -- is far worse.

Sometimes the democrats actions are a bit like this:

Republican: Stealing is wrong.
Democrats: This hypocrite once got incorrect change in a store and DIDN'T BRING IT BACK! That's stealing, isn't it? Well, I'm not going to be like him -- you won't hear a word against stealing from ME!

Who would you vote for? Such a position is both illogical and also very, as I said, "teenagery" -- like a fifteen-year-old who makes a big deal of the fact that mom, trying to quit very hard, is still smoking, and tells him not to start, or the twenty-year-old, living off dad's money in college, ranting against "hypocritical capitalism".
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
Tyr -- we agree 100%. Our only disagreement is whether the word "hypocrite" should apply also to this "technical" sense or only to "serious" cases. I think it shouldn't because it then makes us all hypocrites -- which might be true, but the word then loses all its meaning through overuse.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
Skeptic said:
Tyr -- we agree 100%. Our only disagreement is whether the word "hypocrite" should apply also to this "technical" sense or only to "serious" cases. I think it shouldn't because it then makes us all hypocrites -- which might be true, but the word then loses all its meaning through overuse.
Click to expand...
Which would be fine so long as we don't send our daughters out on abstinence tours and push abstinence in politics. Stigmitize sexually active teens and call sexual activity sin.

It's the right wing politicization of sex and the dishonest pretending that they don't have premarital sex like anyone else that I object to. Therapists and psychologists don't support that nonsense. Let it go and I'm happy to not care if Republicans **** like bunnies, hire prostitutes and engage in gay sex. I likre the idea of live and let live. That the right-wing would do likewise.
 
Last edited:
Perjury is only a crime when what is lied about is material to the case at hand. And we have no such determination from a court. Even when you meet that bar, my lawyer says that perjury is the least-prosecuted crime in the country.
 
Last edited:
A Laughing Baby said:
Media = liberal, national enquirer = media. By the transitive property, the National Enquirer is liberal.
Click to expand...


Sarah Palin had sex with Glen Rice. Glen Rice is a black guy. Sarah Palin got married to Todd Palin and had some kids. Todd Palin is a white guy. Therefore, "Once you go black, you never go back" is a false statement.
 
Perjury is always a crime, but a lie is only perjury if it's material to the case.
Click to expand...
And prosecutors are still charged to excercise prosecutorial discretion and follow prosecutorial ethics and their fiduciary duty not to bring charges for every infraction.
 
Howie Felterbush said:
Sarah Palin had sex with Glen Rice. Glen Rice is a black guy. Sarah Palin got married to Todd Palin and had some kids. Todd Palin is a white guy. Therefore, "Once you go black, you never go back" is a false statement.
Click to expand...

I found a flaw in your proof. If Glen Rice was her first, then hooking up with Todd wouldn't be going back. So we need to establish that she was with at least one white guy prior to Rice, and then your proof is rigorous.
 
Howie Felterbush said:
Sarah Palin had sex with Glen Rice. Glen Rice is a black guy. Sarah Palin got married to Todd Palin and had some kids. Todd Palin is a white guy. Therefore, "Once you go black, you never go back" is a false statement.
Click to expand...

And they say you never learn anything on the internet.
 
sarge said:
That is demonstrably incorrect - and you almost certainly know it.



You introduced the notion that Clinton was subjected to a criminal proceeding, not me. You were mistaken, of course - but if we ignore the obvious and play along with your mischacacterization of the impeachment proceeding, then you must accept that Clinton officially commited no crimes. he is innocent.



No one has claimed they were. It remains true that the charges were based on political motivations having nothing at all to do with real crimes - as evidenced by the political makeup of the "guilty" votes.



You are ignoring the truth, and your defense is that you are unable to see variations of grey? I see it all the time, but I seldom hear someone actually admit it.

The Clinton investigation and impeachment were clumsy attempts by the Republican party to unseat the sitting President. I don't think it much of an exageration to call it a coup, really. 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.
Click to expand...


You have nailed the matter very nicely.
Kudos.
 
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...

As are her supporters, in this case. I dislike Palin (but would still hit that like a retard on drums). I think her a simpleton and an opportunistic windbag with a most annoying voice.

I do not believe she is guilty of hypocrisy in this instance. She hasn't even been shown to have had pre-marital sex, although it is most likely that she did, and even if she has, that wouldn't make her a hypocrit now. She is still quite annoying, however.
 
Darat said:
But couldn't her views have changed over the years? I don't see that as hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Nor do I, but there is a line of thought that she, as a public figure that stumps with abstinance as a central theme, is acting in a hypocritical manner because she failed to come clean about her own pre-marital activities. I don't agree, but only just barely.
 
sarge said:
Nor do I, but there is a line of thought that she, as a public figure that stumps with abstinance as a central theme, is acting in a hypocritical manner because she failed to come clean about her own pre-marital activities. I don't agree, but only just barely.
Click to expand...

Except that there is no "coming clean" about affairs between unmarried, unattached people above the age of consent, to the public.

There may be to various degrees such a thing in religion, such as confession of sins and redemption.

Whether that has or has not occurred in this case is unknown.

In fact, whether the alleged affair occurred is unknown.

Further, the exact standard for "abstinence" has not been produced. It's one thing to advocate that for 10 and 12 year olds, and another for 18-24 year olds. So it's alleged that the standard she used for abstinence is one that would parallel her age group.

Finally, it's alleged that "hypocricy" exists whether or not the attitudes of an individual change over a 25 year period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom