• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Another Governor hikes the Appalachian Trail.

leftysergeant said:
Yeah, but the bimbos are more likely to act out their fantasies, and Republican horndogs are more likely to publicly humiliate their wives
Click to expand...

Yes, because when I think of "fidelity", my first association is, "a Democratic party politician".

Like JFK and Clinton, for instance.
 
Skeptic said:
Yes, because when I think of "fidelity", my first association is, "a Democratic party politician".

Like JFK and Clinton, for instance.
Click to expand...

They didn't kick their wives to the curb and replace them with the bimbos like Rotten Rudy, Newt and McCain.
 
No, they remained married for convenience reasons. Which is, morally, perhaps worse than divorce. Besides, it's not exactly hard to find examples of Democrats who divorced their wives for younger women, now is it? It's not as if politicians as a whole are known for their deep respect for marital vows.

Anyway, if things were the other way -- if Democrats tended to divorce and Republicans to stay married despite everybody knowing they're unfaithful (as in our wholly unrepresentative sample) -- you'd be screaming what hypocrites the Republicans are, remaining married for appearance's sake, and that the Democrats were at least honest enough to follow their heart.
 
Bikewer said:
...
On the face of it, such indiscretions seem to be part and parcel of being in a position of power and authority.
I wonder, though.... What percentage of men (I'll confine this to males as they seem to be the primary transgressors) "stray". Pretty high, I'd think, considering the failure rate of marriage in general.
Do men in positions of power indulge in more hanky-panky than say...Ps....
Click to expand...


This should be no surprise.

We live in an anomalous time in that powerful males (specifically) are supposedly NOT expected to have liasons. I would argue that the current style is not a natural thing, that nature favors the older style.

It all comes down to genetic success. Throughout our evolution power and resources were biologically expensive, and risky to get. Evolutionarily the only payoff is breeding success and those are the ones that contributed their genes to the next generation (it is claimed that Genghis Khan's genetics are in a large portion of Asian and European people).

With males, the chances of success are almost linear with mating opportunities. This is very different for females, where beyond a certain (relatively modest) count, the number of matings does NOT increase genetic success.

It should come as no suprise that powerful or rich males make the most of their mating opportunities, they are descended from many successful ones who did exactly that.

An interesting thing about human females, different from most mammals, is that they remain sexually receptive even when not fertile. This change in behavior from our ancestors, must have had some selective advantage, and its seems to be this:

Unlike most mammals, human young are vulnerable for a long time, a human female cannot store enough nutrition to get them through that difficult time, but evolution provided a different mechanism. By remaining sexually receptive, she kept the male around. Since humans have potential for effective cooperative behavior, this provided necessary resources for the young with relatively little expenditure on her part.

[While females could get power, it often took years and was risky. The best reproductive years would be past by the time she achieved it, so it would work against her reproductive success. The above method worked at a much younger age and allowed for much more extended reproductive life]

So powerful males seeking mating opportunities, and females seeking powerful males through mating is probably one of the most natural dynamics of the human family.
 
Last edited:
To add to what jayh said, this does explain why the powerful males tend to attract extra females, but it is a perversion of this tendancy to reject the previous mates. Tossing out the first wife for the bimbo leaves the children of the first wife to starve, if there is no law to compensate.

Kennedy and Clinton are examples of the natural and probably more successful order.

Rotten Rudy is a sorry adaptation. Just ask his kids.
 
jayh said:
This is nobody's freakin business.
Click to expand...

YOU ARE WRONG!!! Tigers issues are NOBODY'S business, but when a politician who is a member of a party that wants to take away or limit the right of a large number of US citizens on moral ground,then IT IS quit relevant to point out that said party member is a total an utter hypocrite and is in violation of the moral standards he want to club others over the head with!
 
leftysergeant said:
To add to what jayh said, this does explain why the powerful males tend to attract extra females, but it is a perversion of this tendancy to reject the previous mates. Tossing out the first wife for the bimbo leaves the children of the first wife to starve, if there is no law to compensate....
Click to expand...

Along that line, in previous eras when the king took additional partners, the queen was still the queen, and her children were at the top of the heap.
 
Magyar said:
YOU ARE WRONG!!! Tigers issues are NOBODY'S business, but when a politician who is a member of a party that wants to take away or limit the right of a large number of US citizens on moral ground,then IT IS quit relevant to point out that said party member is a total an utter hypocrite and is in violation of the moral standards he want to club others over the head with!
Click to expand...

I don't know (I don't that much about him) that he took a personal position of trying to interfere in people's sex lives. Unlike Spitzer who made a big deal of prosecuting sex workers and there customers. I enjoyed seeing him crash as much as Haggard. (Actually he was much worse than Haggard who just huffed and fumed about morality... Spitzer used the oppressive tools of the state against those he considered immoral.)
 
Last edited:
The big difference between Democrats and Republicans is that, while we shrug off one of our guys getting a little on the side, we are rather quick to throw them under the bus when their dalliances are patently criminal or they abuse their families or the other woman in some way, or have a history of persecuting people for doing the same things they do.

Spitzer and Edwards are dead to us.

We never would have a use for Newt, McCain or Rudy. Especially not Rudy. Verminous little creep, that one is.
 
FarmallMTA said:
Go on, you hypocrite. You leftists don't believe in morals. If they did, they wouldn't steal money from people through taxes.
Click to expand...

Have you ever had an original thought? What you posted here could have been placed here by a robot. It has exactly squat to do with the subject at hand.
 
There is the usual hypocrisy here -- "when our side does it it's not that bad, when their side does it, it's AWFUL" -- much like there was (in reverse) during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Although that was in fact worse -- not because of what Clinton did, but because he lied under oath to deny it. Still, to Clinton's great credit, he quickly recanted and told the truth, as embarrassing as it was.

But seriously, what's the big deal? Divorced man has girlfriend. World SHOCKED.
 
Skeptic said:
But seriously, what's the big deal? Divorced man has girlfriend. World SHOCKED.
Click to expand...

He is awaiting a final decree on his divorce. The reason he is getting a divorce is that his wife found out that he was doing the whango tango with some married bimbo.
 
Upchurch said:
Gotta go with Newtons here. So long as she wasn't traveling on the State's dime, I don't see the issue. Even if she was, seems like a minor thing. Make one of them reimburse the expense and everything is square.
Click to expand...

When do the people in a Governors life deserve to travel on the states money vs their own?
 
leftysergeant said:
He is awaiting a final decree on his divorce. The reason he is getting a divorce is that his wife found out that he was doing the whango tango with some married bimbo.
Click to expand...

So what is your definition of a bimbo?
 
leftysergeant said:
Yeah, but the bimbos are more likely to act out their fantasies, and Republican horndogs are more likely to publicly humiliate their wives by cavorting openly with the bimbos, maybe kick their wives to the curb like that sick old creep who used to run New York and hang out with sleazy old Bernie Kerick.
Click to expand...

What is your point? If he is separated and/or openly seeing other people what is the problem? You are moralizing just like some family values jerk.
 
Magyar said:
YOU ARE WRONG!!! Tigers issues are NOBODY'S business, but when a politician who is a member of a party that wants to take away or limit the right of a large number of US citizens on moral ground,then IT IS quit relevant to point out that said party member is a total an utter hypocrite and is in violation of the moral standards he want to club others over the head with!
Click to expand...

Um is he violating those standards though? It seems he is divorcing his wife and it is not unusual at all for those divorcing to see others before they get finished with the divorce process.
 
jayh said:
I don't know (I don't that much about him) that he took a personal position of trying to interfere in people's sex lives. Unlike Spitzer who made a big deal of prosecuting sex workers and there customers. I enjoyed seeing him crash as much as Haggard. (Actually he was much worse than Haggard who just huffed and fumed about morality... Spitzer used the oppressive tools of the state against those he considered immoral.)
Click to expand...

And yet it seems his replacement was worse. Using the state police and personally calling the girlfriend of his chief of staff beat on, to get the charges dropped. Jeez NY is getting as bad as Illinois.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom