It is always frustrating when someone you admire or support does something so stupid and so wrong. And I don't begrudge the media for following this story--well, not completely. I am not condoning adultery, by the way, but I have never quite figured out when that became the unforgivable sin for a politician. As Cenk Uygur asks,
I remember the bullshit from the Clinton years--"if he will cheat on his wife, how can we trust him to not cheat on us?" And "he lied to his wife and therefore is untrustworthy." At the time, I suggested that HW Bush had not cheated on Barbara, but had certainly lied to us about Iran Contra. His son has taken that ridiculous metric to another level. I have no reason to think that Bush has been anything but faithful to Laura--but he certainly has not been faithful to us. His supposed fidelity to his wife didn't stop him from lying us into war, turning us into a torture nation, and gutting our Constitution. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
And, I suspect, most Republicans will respond that way about McCain. "It was many years ago, and has nothing to do with his potential as a President." Evidently, fidelity is only required of Democrats.
I am sorry for the Edwards family and the harm he has caused to his wife and children. But I remain disgusted by the double standard that will spur countless hours of OUTRAGE on cable news over the weekend.
McCain might be a little quiet, however....
87 comments:
BTW, I think John Edwards cheating on his wife as she struggles to fight cancer is an amazingly low thing to do. That sounds rather crass--as if there is a classy time to cheat on your spouse, but that is certainly not a good one.
And if you read about McCain's you might have the very same response.
Los Angeles Times: McCain's broken marriage and fractured Reagan friendship
Until today I didn't know that Mccain had cheated.
Whoever is going to be the president of the United States must be above board morally and must hold to the same standards as those he or she leads. In the Army if you cheat on your spouse it is a few years in Military Prison.
Therefore neither of these men are qualified to lead.
Streak,
I enter this thread a little trepidatiously for obvious reasons. I agree--this is highly disappointing. I believe you are right; the media will preen over this all weekend. I find it interesting that ole Newt got a free pass. He left his cancer-stricken wife while she was in the hospital, yet Dobson and Land still fawn over him.
I'm sure key religious right figures are sharpening their claws. What I would be more interested in is how Elizabeth responds. I have always admired her and think she is a classy lady. The way she took on Ann Coulter was awesome. I wouldn't be surprised if Elizabeth smooths this over, forgives him, and they move on with their lives.
What is equally sad is that this will get so much media attention. I think you handled this post well.
I just saw this at Daily Kos. Elizabeth released a statement there.
Our family has been through a lot. Some caused by nature, some caused by human weakness, and some – most recently – caused by the desire for sensationalism and profit without any regard for the human consequences. None of these has been easy. But we have stood with one another through them all. Although John believes he should stand alone and take the consequences of his action now, when the door closes behind him, he has his family waiting for him.
That is one darn fine lady.
FP, the President is not a military position (though I am not sure you could tell that from the last 30 years). The position has been militarized far too much, as it is.
And if your standard is "above board morally" then I am not sure who, among our recent presidents, qualifies. And those who do, one has to wonder if they have been the best presidents? Bush might qualify on that level, but beyond that, he has been a joke.
Tony,
Newt is a great example of the right wing double standard. Didn't Dobson say he was different from Clinton because he asked the great mob boss, er I mean Focus on the Family Leader for forgiveness?
And I completely agree. Elizabeth Edwards is one classy and amazing lady.
Streak, as the Commander in Chief of the Military service the president though not a military position MUST maintain the same moral standards of those who he or she leads.
Tony, I was young and could of cared less about politics when Newt was in office. Did he have an affair as well?
Streak, here we can agree in the last 30 years I am not sure who measures up as well. That is the biggest problem I have with politics. Most if not a majority of these men and women are not people of character. People we can trust to put the best interest of the people above their paycheck or special interest.
I actually heard the double standard on the radio with Sean Hannity and I totally disagree with him (said both were wrong but Mccain just came out of the POW Camp.) Mccain is as guilty as Edwards and situations dont make it any better.
Newt not only cheated on his wife while she was ill with cancer (in the hospital) as Tony notes, he did so at the very same time he was publicly shaming Bill Clinton for his Lewinsky affair. I suspect, young and disconnected from politics, you remember that one, right? Gingrich is one of the reasons our politics is so very horrible right now.
Oh, and Sean Hannity is one of the others. I can't believe you can listen to him for longer than a few seconds without your ears bleeding. The man is an idiot, FP, and if you expect anything from him but conservative spin, you will be disappointed.
Finally, the President is not the Commander in Chief all the time. He isn't my Commander, for example. And that standard is frankly ridiculous and certainly not in the constitution. The President doesn't have to have taken any military training, nor pass any physical, etc. He is a civilian. They aren't even required to salute (and Eisenhower did not, unless he was in uniform--which of course, he did not wear as President). That line has been blurred since Reagan and our most recent President has turned that into more of a problem with his "dress-up" and militarizing of the Presidency.
I don't agree with infidelity. But there is no correlation between infidelity and competency as President. Otherwise Bush would be a great President. And I am certainly tired of the Republican double standard--especially by idiot Christians like Dobson--that infidelity is a sign of moral inferiority with Democrats but just a slip for Republicans.
Tony, I was young and could of cared less about politics when Newt was in office. Did he have an affair as well?
I knew I would regret entering this thread. FP, just what in the world are you getting at?
Of course Newt had an affair. Evidence leads toward multiple. However, his wife was lying in a hospital bed riddled with cancer and that is when he decided to bail on her. Classy, huh?
And consider, Dr. James Dobson and Dr. Richard Land (President of the Southern Baptist Convention Committee on ETHICS and Religious Liberty) were cozied up to Newt early this year nearly begging Newt to throw his hat in and run for president.
All the while Clinton is getting impeached for an essentially unimpeachable offense and Newt is screaming the loudest for his head. We seldom condemn the sins in which we ourselves are involved and more often than not, strongly decry those involved in them. If I can put your attention on his sin over there, then I am free to enjoy my sin without repercussion, right?
However, George Bush has never cheated on Laura (so far as we know), so that makes him probably the best president in history. Sorry for the snark, but Streak is right.
The GOP has touted themselves as the family values party for years upon years yet their hypocrisy becomes more evident every day--yet conservative talking points are what saves their hides all the time.
Republicans cheat on their spouses, extort and launder money, buy time with prostitutes, abandon their wives and kids for reasons much less than marital infidelity, and I might add, have homosexual affairs, just as much as those dastardly liberals and Democrats they condemn and criticize for doing the same.
If we apply your standard, Obama should take office tomorrow.
Oh, and btw, frankly, the whole "president as commander in chief" is overblown. Do we really want a president as commander in chief all the time? Sounds more like a totalitarian regime to me.
Tony, I seriously didnt know about it. I was like 22 when Newt was around and no media has talked much about it lately (as far as I know.) I am not getting at anything besides asking if he had indeed had an affair.
Next, regardless of military or not the President is the commander in chief at least over the military. If a soldier in the United States Military can be imprisoned for Infidelity then the leader of the military should face the same standards. That is all I am trying to say.
Finally, I think republicans and democrats alike are just as morally suspect WHICH DISQUALIFIES THEM FOR LEADERSHIP.
I think both of you are incorrect by saying this issue doesnt matter in the context of competency as a President. It does matter if you are not a man or woman of character in private you wont be a man or woman of character in public! That doesnt mean as streak mentioned earlier something along the lines "he cheated on his wife, he will cheat us."
This to me is the problem. Our men and women in governmental leadership both "conservative" and "liberal" alike are not people of integrity, morals, and selfless service! Their personal lives make all the difference in the world.
Integrity, morality, and selfless service are not the only qualifications in becoming a president. They should count though (which unfortunately they dont.)
So, is Bush then the greatest President ever because he didn't cheat on Laura? Or is fidelity more important than competence and public honor? We shouldn't have to choose, but if we did, I would prefer to have a President who has problems in his marriage than one who has turned us into a torture nation.
As the bumper sticker said, "can't we get this guy a blowjob so we can impeach him?" Sigh.
And I ask again, since you want to make the President into a Military person under the same standards as the Military, what other qualifications then should we add to his requirements?
You are buying into a militarized Presidency and a militarized society. This isn't an attack on the military. I don't have a problem with the military and have great respect for people who serve, but our society should not be run by the military, and this militarizing of the President is a dangerous trend.
FP, you did know about Clinton's affair then, right? If you are listening to Sean Hannity and Rushbo, then no wonder you haven't heard about Newt's affair. They still see him as some kind of genius. He is smart, I will grant you, but also a colossal scumbag.
I think both of you are incorrect by saying this issue doesnt matter in the context of competency as a President. Watch it, FP. I didn't say that.
What I did say was that Republicans get a spin job on their infidelities while honorable people like Edwards are getting grilled and shamed for the same thing. Did you overlook the link I provided to Elizabeth's statement?
I said nothing about character and fidelity as a requirement for office--I did point out the hypocrisy of people like Newt and those who have cheered him on.
I believe character and fidelity should be scrutinized, but only insofar as it affects their capacity to lead. I seriously doubt you can tell me every CO you served under was faithful in every aspect of his or her life. The point is, no one is morally above reproach. But we can condemn one for receiving fellatio in the Oval Office yet violations of basic human rights gets a wink and a nod. Sigh.
Oh, and btw, thanks for changing that avatar.
Streak, I didnt imply that just because one hasnt cheated on their spouse makes them the greatest president of all. I just think that it is an issue of importance and should be a part of the elective process.
The president does not have to be a Military person, but has to uphold the same standard as their boss. It is simple leadership principles. How can the President of the United States the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces enforce the laws of the country and rules and regulations of the Military if that person doesnt uphold the same standard?
I am not sure which part I am not making clear but I for sure am not saying that we have to militarize anything! I am just saying that the President must uphold the same standards of morality.
I knew about Clinton because it was so blownn up you couldnt avoid it. I was also in the Military right before that came out. I very rarely even get a chance to listen to the radio let alone Hannity or Rush.
I think that Tony is right...Newt is a scumbag for doing that to his wife. It speaks of a lack of character in many areasn (which would disqualify him to lead). His word in sickness and health was a lie, he was more concerned about getting laid than the condition of his former wife, etc.
I think that in 4 or 5 years if Edwards has shown that he has fixed that area of his life he can come back and serve, but his lack of character is a clear signal he isnt ready for a leadership role at this particular moment.
Now Tony, you said you agreed with streak and that by my standard Bush is the best president ever. Then you go on in your next reply to say that " but only insofar as it affects their capacity to lead" This is the same thing Streak said. So if you dont think that the personal life of a president matterd as long as they perform I am sorry.
As far as morally above reproach...I believe so. They didnt take bribes, to my knowledge faithful to their wives, not enaged in crime, etc.
No one can be completely MORAL, but they can be honorable.
Let's put it this way. Can you as a pastor lead your congregation while having an affair? Or being sexually active outside marriage? What about if you are stealing money from the church?
Leadership is leadership whether spiritually or secularly. The standards for leadership should be and are higher than the standards of everyone else.
If the President of the United States can't be trusted to be a person of integrity and morals than they should not be leading the country period.
PS...I did actually change the avatar for you
So does that make McCain fit for leadership?
And I still think you are imposing on the President requirements that are not Constitutional. Like I said, I would prefer to have a hound in the office than one who turned us into a torture nation.
Streak if you will look back I say that Mccain is unfit to lead by the same standard.
Tony, I mistyped one of those lines. If you were not saying the same thing as streak I apologize. But your comments made it look like you do.
Ok.
No trying to pick fights with other commentators. I don't want you running off my regulars.
Streak as far as unconstitutional, which part of it would be? I can think of several issues where morality was used and is used to make laws, interpret laws, and to accept political figures.
One of my colleagues put it best when we heard the breaking news: "Who does he think he is? Newt Gingrich?"
Just wondering where you find that requirement for being President. Article 2, section 1:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
a quick question about Edwards. I watch his admission speech on CNN. During this he said something along the lines that this has been done and over with since 2006. So why then was he at the hotel with her alone at 230am?
Doesnt that seem odd?
I don't think there is any kind of double standard, the media just loves these kinds of stories. McCain's antics aren't much of a story now because they happened so long ago. In 20 or so years, I am sure Edwards's affair will be mostly forgotten.
I was very saddened to hear this news. I liked Edwards. Along with Richardson, he was my top choice for the Democratic ticket. I read several of his foreign policy papers and they were very well though out and intelligent. He also had some great ideas for giving the uninsured coverage and he had detailed plans on how to pay for it. Unlike most of the other candidates, he had substance to back up his words.
History is full of great leaders that had affairs, so I would agree that it doesn't mean that someone would make a poor leader. That being said, I think it is a lousy thing to do under any circumstances. I have known several people that have had affairs and it was devastating to their families. Not only does the other spouse suffer, but the kids also have a hard time coping. IMO, it one of the most selfish things a person can do.
If I had known about this during the primaries, I would have had a hard time still supporting Edwards. Maybe that seems petty, but it is just hard to ignore. I didn't like it when Clinton did it and thought it showed that he had poor impulse control and didn't seem to care about his wife and family. I also didn't like his policy decisions, so his affairs didn't really change my overall opinion of him.
The worst part of this whole mess is that Elizabeth has to go through this in the public eye. No matter what she does, she will be evaluated by the public.
Streak, I am basing my argument on a couple of things.
1. Leadership must uphold a higher moral standard than those they lead. I.E. the military doesnt allow for adultery and punishes it with jail time.
2. If morality wasnt an issue in the selecting of a President then this and other times it has happened would never even be brought up.
3. If morals and the way we live our "private" lives are separate from our "public" lives as servants of the people then we have no right to legislate laws. Regardless of what any of believe our laws are based on a moral code. If we dont uphold the moral code used to define right and wrong how will we exercise the proper judgment to lead?
I did actually change the avatar for you Thanks. I appreciate that. It really helps your image.
Now to the substance of your return comment..
So if you dont think that the personal life of a president matterd as long as they perform I am sorry. FP, I didn't say that. I clearly said the morality and fidelity of a man/woman running for office is important. I didn't say it didn't matter. Please reread my comment.
It isn't the only thing that matters though, which I think we agree here, but neither should it be the sole arbiter of determination if a man or woman is fit for service in public office. If so, then it is going to be devilishly difficult how to enforce morality on everyone who runs for office. Whose morality should be imposed then? Certainly not everyone who is in public office subscribes to Christian morality of which there is also vast differences there, too.
The main point of this thread/post is the double standard of morality that Repubs/Dems are held to.
No one can be completely MORAL, but they can be honorable. Now see, Newt is neither. Edwards may not be moral but he is doing the honorable thing and is willing to suffer the consequences of his actions.
This is still beside the main point.
Let's put it this way. Can you as a pastor lead your congregation while having an affair? Or being sexually active outside marriage? What about if you are stealing money from the church? You are turning around the original question that I asked you. Certainly every CO you have served under isn't above reproach and you are going to have a very difficult time convincing me otherwise.
If the President of the United States can't be trusted to be a person of integrity and morals than they should not be leading the country period. C'mon. Can you make that broad sweeping assertion and be comfortable with our current leadership? McCain's fitness for office? Again, if you are going to make this claim, you need to be prepared for what it brings us, because right now Obama (as far as we know) is light years ahead of McCain morally.
Streak, I mean no slight toward Obama, but only mirroring right wing rhetoric for argument's sake.
Let me add this. It isnt a permanent disqualifier. I agree with Steve. It shows poor judgment and selfishness. If Mccain, Clinton, Newt, and Edwards show that they have gotten help in this area and have made corrections then eventually they can come back and lead.
Still dont like Mccain, Clinton, or Edwards...
As for hypocrisy, there is plenty to go around, though I would say that most of it comes from the fact that we only have two parties. Die-hard people in both parties will overlook certain behaviors because what else would they do? Join the other side? That would mean compromising other important policy stands. This just won't happen.
Tony if you will go up and read my comments you will see that I dont believe Mccain or Bush are the best. I actually am stuck. I dont want Mccain in office or Obama for that matter. Bush was not my choice either.
I also did come back and correct my statement with regards to what you said.
I am not sure why you keep bringing up Newt. I wasnt even involved in anything remotely political at the time and had no clue what type of person he was or is.
If you go back and read my post's I am not even defending conversatives or bashing liberals so I am not sure why that keeps being brought into this.
To me it doesnt really matter what you believe about my past commanders. I only had 2 before I got out and the couple I have served with as a civilian contractor. As a matter of fact one was stripped and removed because of Adultery last year. The charge was adultery and he was declared UNFIT TO LEAD! While I was in the Army I had 2 commanders and to my knowledge they upheld the standards of morality.
If you read my previous post I said I believe Mccain is unfit to lead.
"Who does he think he is? Newt Gingrich?"
Hilarious and right on point.
Steve, I am not sure how I would have responded had I known this. I agree with you, there is no way to suggest that this is a good act by Edwards.
FP
1) The President is not in the military. I know you know that, but you seem to be assigning him/her a special requirement based on morality, but no other real requirements to oversee the military. And he/she really doesn't oversee the Military. They are the civilian head--meaning that our leadership is not military. The President is not supposed to be the one dictating Military discipline, or even Military tactics. (And we have seen what has happened when someone like Bush thinks he is a General.)
2) If this wasn't important, it wouldn't be brought up? By that logic, everything on the news is actually, and validly important. I guess Suri Cruise really IS news.
3) equally illogical. No one is saying that we don't have to be moral, but we are saying there is a difference between public and private. Is adultery still on the books as a crime? There are a great many things that people do in private that I don't agree with. But this is a good example. As with Clinton, the sin here is incredibly private and really none of our business. Who knows how marriages and families function when you aren't in them? It should be up to the Edwards how to manage and negotiate that.
Compare that to the public sins that our current president has visited on us. We are all now complicit in torture, rendition and using Soviet gulags for more torture. We are now complicit in keeping people in cages, and detaining people indefinitely. We are all complicit in the complete destruction of a country. That is all public, and all directly relevant to me.
Tony, no problem. I actually had a thought last night that the one person who was more upset by this revelation (outside the Edwards family, of course) was possibly John McCain because this brings his affair and first marriage back into the limelight.
BTW, Newt is not some past-tense politician. As Tony notes, the scumbag was practically recruited by Christian "leaders" Richard Land and James Dobson and he is now trying to urge the Republicans to shut down the government over this drilling nonsense. He is very relevant and still listened to. And he could easily run again in the future. I am sure Hannity will be there to bow before him.
The right wing forgives their own adulterers--well, unless they are gay, but when a liberal does it--it is proof of a moral failing.
FP,
You are the most disingenuous person I have ever met on the web.
I am not implicating anyone you have served with; that WAS NOT the point. The point was that you are making broad, sweeping assertions that cannot be enforced or even proven. Sure, that one CO was stripped of his command, but what about others in positions of leadership at, near, or around you while in the army? You think they were all fit to lead, from the corporal all the way up to the general? This is the assertion you have made; deal with it:
Leadership is leadership whether spiritually or secularly. The standards for leadership should be and are higher than the standards of everyone else.
And on Newt--I keep bringing him up because he is not out of the political scene yet. He could still very well run for president, and if he does I can guarantee you Dobson et. al. will be cheerleaders.
Streak,
Sorry, I didn't see that you had already covered about Newt.
Streak what is your job? It is a teacher right? I thought you had said you are a professor at a university right?
So your students are not allowed to copy other people's materials right? So if you as the teacher copy other peoples materials in writing a review without giving the proper credit how would that look?
You would not be able to enforce the standards of your school because you are violating them as well.
This is the argument that I am making with the President. He must maintain the same standard as those he directly leads.
Throughout the late 90's there were a series of discussions, interviews, and newspieces on the President must uphold a higher moral standard. This is what I mean by "if it wasnt important, it wouldnt be brought up"
The American Public cares about the morality of their leader. This is why this is in the news (though I am sure the media has their own reasons which have nothing to do with morality.)
No who is changing topics midstream streak :)
As far as Bush and torture, etc. Lets discuss that one on another thread.
I dont agree with torture. Nor do I think we have to give Non-Military violent radicals constitutional rights.
I believe you must be a citizen of the United States to receive its benefits. Though I think you should be treated with dignity (though our enemy isnt giving us that preference)
You would not be able to enforce the standards of your school because you are violating them as well.
This is the argument that I am making with the President. He must maintain the same standard as those he directly leads.
Bad logic. It is my job to teach students not to plagiarize. It is not the President's job to legislate who can sleep with whom.
I think you guys are funny. Every time I even slightly say something that could be construed as insulting streak comes unglued. Yet you can totally insult me and nothing gets said. Talk about the double standard in politics.
Now Tony in my 10 years affilated with or in the military I cant even count how many people I have seen be removed for moral lapse of judgment. Everything from adultery, misappropriation of funds, unlawful commands, DUI's, etc.
Will they catch all of them? No, I know that. The fact is that when they do catch them they are removed!
It isnt bad logic. It is about standards. The president has standards to uphold both in the civilian sector and the military sector.
How can he enforce them if he is the one violating them.
It IS bad logic. The President is not the Pastor in Chief, and he isn't our morality coach. Certainly not about private choices.
And the torture issue is completely on point. Bush has overseen a policy where we copy tactics from the Soviets, Nazis, and Chinese (the last one intended to produce false confessions). This is the morality I care one hell of a lot more about than if someone is having sex.
Tony you actually are implicating the ones I served with. You say "Certainly every CO you have served under isn't above reproach and you are going to have a very difficult time convincing me otherwise."
I am not sure how else to take this.
Streak is this still about waterboarding or are you refering to something new?
Will they catch all of them? No, I know that. The fact is that when they do catch them they are removed!
Remember, this post was about double standards. We know of Bush's atrocities but he has yet to be held to ANY standard, other than his own.
You want an insult? Perhaps you should take a logic primer and reading comprehension refresher. There. Be insulted.
And by the way, FP, the double standard you see is actually just one of relationships. You have not built up a lot of personal capital here. You have some--your willingness last time to admit that waterboarding was torture was a good thing. But you use very questionable rhetorical techniques and have been combative and pugnacious very often. The regulars here are regulars because we have built up a certain community trust.
If you want to fit in, you might have to work at it.
Wow, tony I am so impressed.
Bush was not a part of this conversation, infidelity was. I am talking about a moral standard of infidelity among the leadership.
I was trying to be more consistent for Streak who has stated that I change topics mid-stream.
Double standard again ladies?
Waterboarding, fake burials, hypothermia, stress positions. See here.
We are now a torture nation. We are now in a situation where petty dictators point to our black sites and Gitmo as justification for their own secret police.
Sigh.
FP,
You said I said: You say "Certainly every CO you have served under isn't above reproach and you are going to have a very difficult time convincing me otherwise."
Yet I come back and say, Sure, that one CO was stripped of his command, but what about others in positions of leadership at, near, or around you while in the army? You think they were all fit to lead, from the corporal all the way up to the general? This is the assertion you have made; deal with it:
Leadership is leadership whether spiritually or secularly. The standards for leadership should be and are higher than the standards of everyone else.
Read back into that statement all you want, but this isn't about the army and who you have served with or under or whatever.
Double standard again ladies?
Is this your way of participating in a community? Or is this just more masculine bullshit?
So streak because I havent built "relationships" here it is ok to have a double standard? Do you really mean to say that?
Have I been combative on this particular post? What about pugnacious? Nope. Tony sure is though (not that I mind.)
Now Tony what double standard are we talking about. Bush has done what that is an atrocity?
Waterboarding (not that waterboarding isnt enough on its own) and what else?
Now I do regret ever joining this thread. Every conversation with you boils down to you, FP. Its always about you. You can take your masculine innuendo and shove it.
Streak, I'm outta here. If you want to talk with the pugilistic pastor, you can have it.
You have absolutely been pugnacious. And you misunderstand me. We often engage in some heated discussions here, but in this community, we have built up a degree of trust and respect. Steves and I disagree often on gun issues, but we respect each other.
You can't just come in here and throw your weight around without any trust or respect and expect to be treated as one of the regulars. This is my little community here, like it or not. If you don't like that, you are always free to leave.
And waterboarding constitutes war crimes--at least it did when the Japanese did it during WWII. Hypothermia, faked executions and putting people in little coffins is pretty horrific stuff and torture. It may not be vivisection (though if they are evil, why not?) but it is clearly something we used to prosecute when other countries did it.
Bush's policy appears to be "it is ok if we do it."
Neither. I just figured since it is ok for you both to come unglued and start insulting me...heck why cant I?
I have been very reasonable on this post and not bashed any of your hero's. I actually have agreed with you on most issues on this particular post and yet Tony turns around and starts questioning my character by telling me I am "disingenuous."
So...yeah I think the double standard is funny
Let's put it this way, FP, I am perfectly willing to let you leave if you don't like the way we do things here.
I am not, however, willing to lose Tony as a regular here. If I have to choose, this won't be a difficult choice for me.
Neither. I just figured since it is ok for you both to come unglued and start insulting me...heck why cant I?
I have been very reasonable on this post and not bashed any of your hero's. I actually have agreed with you on most issues on this particular post and yet Tony turns around and starts questioning my character by telling me I am "disingenuous."
So...yeah I think the double standard is funny
You don't understand either the community or how to build relationships with people. Keep it up and the comment moderation comes back on. And you can call it whatever you like. I couldn't care less. You haven't earned the right to come in here and act this way. Leighton tried to explain that to you the last time you were here, but you didn't get it then either.
Up to you.
FP,
Calling you disingenuous is NOT questioning your CHARACTER. It calls into question your rhetorical skill, ability to read and understand, and your logic. Not once have I questioned your character.
I apologize for being overbearing in this thread but your communicative skills frustrate me.
Streak, notice that I agreed that waterboarding is torture...so I am not sure what you are all upset about with that.
Tony funny I would say the same about you. I have at least on more than one occasion apologized and on more than one occasion came back and changed my stance on the issue (i.e. waterboarding). Yet in all of the time I have been on this board or yours I HAVE NEVER ONCE SEEN YOU DO THE SAME.
I think Streak would agree (maybe not) that on this particular post I have "behaved" well. Actually engaging in non-pugnacious dialog. I didnt bash your hero and he wasnt even the subject.
Bush has done what that is an atrocity?
Waterboarding (not that waterboarding isnt enough on its own) and what else?
Read that too quickly and thought you said waterboarding wasn't an atrocity. My mistake.
You are being pugnacious right now with Tony. Knock it off.
oh wow...so Tony can start insulting me and I get moderated?
wow...total double standard
Anyway back to the thrust of this particular post (since streak changed the topic mid-stream) that the President of the United States must be a person of high moral standards and be held to a higher standard than those of he/she leads.
I HAVE NEVER ONCE SEEN YOU DO THE SAME.
Tell me, then FP, on what position do I need to change my stance? This is what I mean by disingenuous. You make a claim back it up.
"Didn't bash my hero?" What does that mean?
Streak, please help me out. What is FP getting at here?
And Tony isnt being pugnacious with me?
Tony, I have no clue.
FP, this
oh wow...so Tony can start insulting me and I get moderated?
Suggests that you still don't understand the concept of community, nor that of personal capital, nor that of building some sense of trust.
Stop whining about your perceived double standard. You are right, I take insults and jokes and jabs from my friends because I know and trust them. I don't trust you and I really don't know you.
I am not sure what is so difficult about that to understand.
FP,
BTW, I did apologize to you right here: I apologize for being overbearing in this thread but your communicative skills frustrate me.
Tony here is what I mean. Have you ever been wrong about anything? Have you ever done anything that you need to apologize for on these boards? I cant recall one time you thought you were wrong, considered the possibility you might be wrong, or apologized for anything.
I have on several occasions done such...
It would appear to me this is all about you and your liberal agenda.
True you did. I am sorry in all the time I have been here you have apologized once :)
It would appear to me this is all about you and your liberal agenda.
Hah. Tony, you have been tagged, I guess. Little did you know all those years you have been a good conservative that you would once be accused of being part of the "liberal agenda." What is next? Part of the "gay agenda?" :)
FP, you really don't understand community or building friendships do you?
Streak, do you really think my feelings are hurt by Tony's insults? You guys are funny. My whining as you put it is nothing more than to make you aware that your standards just like the standards of the presidency are suspect to the whim of the moment. It is ok for your friend to be rude and insult me, but when I return the favor it isnt ok.
This is the same problem with politics. Morals and Standards are based on feelings, loyalties, and political positions instead of truth.
FP,
First of all I'm not a liberal. Streak will affirm my conservative bona fides as well as any other contributor on this board or on mine.
Have you ever been wrong about anything? Have you ever done anything that you need to apologize for on these boards? I cant recall one time you thought you were wrong, considered the possibility you might be wrong, or apologized for anything.
I have been wrong on numerous occasions; just because you think I have never been wrong in a conversation with you doesn't mean I have never been wrong. That is called bad logic, John.
And I have apologized plenty of times not just on this board but others. As a matter of fact, I posted a very public apology on an SBC board I used to contribute to. Ask Streak or any other contributor. Honestly, I see no reason why I owe you any kind of apology here.
This is exactly what I mentioned earlier--any conversation with you comes down to a personal argument. Its about you and only you. It can NEVER be about discussing an issue. You make it personal every time.
Now, I am done. Feel free to continue to comment to me and state your fine opinions of me but I am not responding to you in this thread any longer. This has eaten up enough of my time today.
Streak, initially at the beginning of this post I was. I was doing as you asked. Then came the insults. Go back and look. Was I being pugnacious on this post until I was insulted?
Tony, I was dealing with issue until you started insulting me?
Good god. I was trying to explain this, but you are either unwilling or unable to understand.
This is my little house. I invite my friends and actually allow a lot of people to come through and talk. My friends are people I know and trust. We joke with each other and argue (sometimes heatedly) with each other. But we have a level of trust.
You have come in here, and tried to act as if you are part of that little circle of trust. Instead of being respectful of this group and trying to earn a little credibility, you cry "double standard" when I ask you to behave.
At a personal level, this shows a lack of understanding about others. This blog will be much happier without you (the way you are acting now) but will be much sadder of I lose my regular friends and commentators.
What don't you understand about that?
Tony, I specifically said on this board. I do not go around checking on your other blogs.
Now notice about 4 or 5 posts back I try to bring this back to the topic...
I have never tried to act like a part of your little circle.
And I was trying to be respectful...but what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
go back and look...you will see that I was being respectful and not being combative until Tony started in...but hey he is apart of the crowd so it is ok.
Now back to the issue (lets try again)
I believe the president or people running for president should uphold a higher standard than the groups they represent.
OK, FP--whatever. I'll concede. You are the more honorable party here. You did nobly try to steer the conversation back on topic. And I did insult you--but I did apologize. Do I need to do apologize again?
I'm sorry, OK?
Regardless of whether the thread is on topic or not, I really have no desire to talk with you. At all. I guess that makes me a horrible person. Now, I really am done with this thread.
Sigh. You are welcomed into my house, but you put your feet up on the coffee table, refuse to use a coaster, and then are rude to my close friends.
There is no "goose" and no "gander" in this little play.
I find all this tiresome, except for one very interesting observation.
The idea that "the personal is political" is a central tenet of feminism. In this thread, we see the leading exponent of this position address the others as "ladies," seemingly with the intent to insult.
I would not consider myself a feminist in some regards. Though I do believe in equal rights, equal pay, equal opportunity, and stuff like that...but I would still not associate myself with that group
Tony, stop apologizing you are ruining one of my arguments :)
Streak...back to the topic at hand.
I thought I had posted this...but maybe not.
Has anyone given thought to that Edwards said that this thing was over in like 2006 but in 2008 he was in the hotel alone with her and her baby at like 230 in the morning? Is it just me or is that odd?
Actually, I really don't care about Edwards' timeline. The issue is he admitted to an affair. Not sure what else there is to discuss.
And Ubub's point was that you use the feminine as an insult. You saying you aren't a feminist doesn't really matter. You insult men by calling them women. Why?
Military talk...often in the midst of arguments refer to one another as ladies.
So Streak this doesnt seem suspect to you? I mean in his press release he states that everything was over in 06 but yet 2 weeks ago was in the hotel with her at 230am?
It will be interesting to see whatelse comes of this.
Military talk...often in the midst of arguments refer to one another as ladies.
Doesn't really excuse it, does it?
And I really don't care about Edwards. He isn't running for anything and his affair, while sleazy and immoral, is irrelevant. Does it matter to the broader context of American policy?
In my line of work, we would typically call the turn this conversation has taken gossip. :)
Since this has become such a sticking point for you FP, even the conservative American Spectator believe the picture of Edwards at the Hilton holding Hunter's baby is demonstrably false.
That's right, Tony, the conversation has turned to the equivalent of "is Britney pregnant again with K-Fed's child?"
We may, and I stress may have some right to know about our elected leader's private lives (though, as we have discussed, I would rather have a good indication of their public and policy lives, ie., governmental transparency) but musing about a private citizen's marital woes and sexual escapades is really ridiculous.
I agree here. I think the picture is absolutely false. What is not false is that he was in the hotel with the woman and the baby and had to be escorted out.
Streak, no more an excuse than what you gave for Tony.
Tony, not sure that this would be considered gossip. Not sure that your wrong, just not sure that I agree.
In your mind what is the difference between this line of reasoning with Edwards and the line of reasoning I have seen you guys use to discredit the current president?
Having demonstrably true evidence is altogether different from mere speculation. Plus, we talk about things like torture, warrantless wire-tapping, no-bid contracts awarded to close friends, and the manipulation of evangelical voters for political gain and the inconsistencies thereof.
But its a lot more fun to dicker about the improprieties of a Democratic also-ran, huh?
Personally, I think you are just trying to gain momentum in an argument that is essentially over and more than that, in which you have no credibility any longer. Like ubub said, this is tiresome.
Discrediting Edwards does what, exactly? I think Tony is right here. This is an irrelevant story, only made relevant because it involves sex. If it were a financial scandal, for example, it would just as easily derail talk of Edwards working in a future administration, but would not be the subject of "was he in a hotel room" talk.
I think we can do better than focus on the sex lives of people.
And I am sorry, but disparaging men by calling them women is a different shade of insult. It is blatant sexism.
Well there it is fact he was there after he said it was over. There is now the issue of money that is surfacing...I saw this on CNN which is liberal in its slant so it isnt the conservative conspiracy.
Lastly, it is important because if he was in that hotel with that woman after he said this was over then it shows us that he hasnt really changed and further lends to the idea that he is not qualified to hold public office.
and further lends to the idea that he is not qualified to hold public office.
He's not running for office. So, your point is, besides some overt obsession with delving into the man's private life...what, exactly?
You really haven't proven anything. Well, you have, but then it would be me being insulting again (yawn). And we just can't have that.
FP, you keep trying to stir up a pot that isn't going any longer. CNN (not liberal, btw) and all the other talking heads will cover this for one reason: sex and scandal sell, and even more when the scandal IS sex.
Americans may not understand torture, wmd, war rational, wiretapping, the Constitution, etc--but they sure as hell understand sex and will tune in to watch coverage of sex scandals.
But don't try to convince me that this is relevant. Will it help us decide who should lead us next? Will it make us a better people to take the Edwards family apart piece by piece?
It seems to be keeping you occupied, so welcome to the American obsession. I would prefer to read about what the next President is going to do about Georgia and Russia, and what plans they have to help us with energy and environmental problems. And i would sure as hell like to find out if the next President is going to allow this President's crimes to go unchallenged into the past?
Those are things that matter to me.
why is it the job of the next president to deal with Russia? It seems like everytime we get involved outside of america the left screams that we are warmongers?
This is important for several reasons that have nothing to do with the sex part of it.
1. The man Edwards is using to give money to this woman is one of Obama's people.
2. In my opinion Edwards shouldnt be able to run for any office in the future until he comes clean on this.
Oh and just so you understand...everyone is human, everyone blows it. In my opinionn if Edwards comes clean and shows that he has worked on his integrity and marriage then in a few years he could get right back into civil service and be a public servant again.
I am really officially tired of the Edwards thread. Bored. As Tony says, "yawn."
As for Georgia, only a conservative would think that what I said meant we should get involved militarily.
Actually, this is a mess that Bush contributed to. Not only did he tell Georgia that we would support them in their efforts to reclaim their lost territory, but he has spent the last 8 years coddling Putin, and giving him cute nicknames, and saying that he had a good soul.
We elected an idiot wrapped in a frat boy, and now we are living with a very complex world with that guy running around with the women beach volleyball players rather than actually serving as a leader. He is a disgrace.
And as far as I know, has not had an affair. Sure glad to know that.
Streak, I hope you get what you want...OBAMA and see where we are after 8 years of that.
Has Bush made mistakes...RESOUNDING YES.
But eventually you and others like you will have to accept the fact that not everything is that guys fault.
I hope you are still alive and kicking when history looks back at his 8 years and we truly see what kind of president he has been.
You accuse Bush for being responsible for this because he coddled Putin...I find this extremely interesting, because when he initiates talks with someone he isnt doing enough, and then when America takes Military actions he is the worst of all things.
I think it would be healthier for you to just admit right, wrong, or indifferent you hate Bush and he would never be able to satisfy your demands.
Maybe we should make you a diplomat and send you to Iran to "talk without pre-conditions" and see where that gets us.
I find this extremely interesting, because when he initiates talks with someone he isnt doing enough, and then when America takes Military actions he is the worst of all things.
More statements like that and you will find me unable to resist insulting you. Because it is so patently false it is laughable. The man didn't discover diplomacy until this last year. Tell me, when has Bush gotten in trouble (from liberals) for talking to someone?
Were you talking about Putin? I hope not, because that is moronic. Putin is/was our ally and partner in some ventures. Bush "looked into his soul" though and decided he was a good guy. Then essentially looked the other way while Putin removed democracy from Russia.
Is all of this Bush's fault? No, of course not. But he is in so far over his head that it isn't funny. And anyone who tries to defend him after these 8 years of disaster is asking for abuse.
Or maybe we can look to that list of Bush accomplishments? Perhaps they are under the WMD? Or the rebuilding of NOLA. Or perhaps Gonzales forgot where he put them.
Post a Comment