| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/29/2011 03:15:05 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by yakatme:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Note that this first amendment covers what the OWS "occupiers" are doing...
R. |
The first amendment doesn't cover everything that the OWS "occupiers" are doing. My son made the point to me recently that the even the right to free speech is not meant to be a "free for all". There are rules outside of the first amendment that need to be observed while exercising one's rights. |
well what the cop told me...you have the right to free speech as long as it's not infringing on another person's rights. |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 09:29:19 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by o2bskating:
Originally posted by yakatme:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Note that this first amendment covers what the OWS "occupiers" are doing...
R. |
The first amendment doesn't cover everything that the OWS "occupiers" are doing. My son made the point to me recently that the even the right to free speech is not meant to be a "free for all". There are rules outside of the first amendment that need to be observed while exercising one's rights. |
well what the cop told me...you have the right to free speech as long as it's not infringing on another person's rights. |
Oh... the convenient "right".... lol |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 09:33:20 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by o2bskating:
Originally posted by yakatme:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Note that this first amendment covers what the OWS "occupiers" are doing...
R. |
The first amendment doesn't cover everything that the OWS "occupiers" are doing. My son made the point to me recently that the even the right to free speech is not meant to be a "free for all". There are rules outside of the first amendment that need to be observed while exercising one's rights. |
well what the cop told me...you have the right to free speech as long as it's not infringing on another person's rights. |
Oh... the convenient "right".... lol |
exactly! |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 09:48:27 PM · #29 |
While I liked some of Cain's positions and his experience on economic issues, I think he was falling apart on foreign policy - not just his foreign policy knowledge (or lack thereof), but his attitude about it. Anyway, as far as the affair(s) and other accusations - like someone said earlier - not a shred of evidence, yet most in this country (and in this thread - you know who you are) have convicted him. That's their/your prerogative, but most liberals were singing quite a different tune when it came to Clinton and the media did all they could to ignore the John Edwards scandal initially and where Obama is concerned, there are quite a few credible accusations floating out there, and have been since he started his 08 campaign, but they have never seen the light of day in the mainstream media.
So, to take down a Republican, you could (openly, even) hire 3 or 4 women to come out with accusations and they will be given all the microphones and get their 15 minutes and even if it came out that each one was paid to lie, the media would say "well, yeah, but look at how many accusations there are - it must be true." For a Democrat, the candidate must have made his/her misdeeds so blatant that it would be impossible to ignore and even then, they only fall (if they do) when they lie about it.
So, to summarize, what bothers me the most is the inconsistency of the media and the consumers of said media and the utter hypocrisy. |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 10:04:04 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
While I liked some of Cain's positions and his experience on economic issues, I think he was falling apart on foreign policy - not just his foreign policy knowledge (or lack thereof), but his attitude about it. Anyway, as far as the affair(s) and other accusations - like someone said earlier - not a shred of evidence, yet most in this country (and in this thread - you know who you are) have convicted him. That's their/your prerogative, but most liberals were singing quite a different tune when it came to Clinton and the media did all they could to ignore the John Edwards scandal initially and where Obama is concerned, there are quite a few credible accusations floating out there, and have been since he started his 08 campaign, but they have never seen the light of day in the mainstream media.
So, to take down a Republican, you could (openly, even) hire 3 or 4 women to come out with accusations and they will be given all the microphones and get their 15 minutes and even if it came out that each one was paid to lie, the media would say "well, yeah, but look at how many accusations there are - it must be true." For a Democrat, the candidate must have made his/her misdeeds so blatant that it would be impossible to ignore and even then, they only fall (if they do) when they lie about it.
So, to summarize, what bothers me the most is the inconsistency of the media and the consumers of said media and the utter hypocrisy. |
I don't believe it's hypocrisy at all though. Most democrats do not run on a "moral" platform. They're not going to preach to you about how you should live your life. Live and let live. Where as most republicans are all about the anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-whatever, you're going to hell attitude. They just love pointing fingers about what's so wrong with anyone who thinks differently than they do. So when they get caught with their pants down, doing the things they're telling others not to do, it matters. Of course, this is only my opinion, but I believe Hilary knew what was going on with her husband long before anything ever came out. And frankly, I don't think she gave a crap about it. So why should anyone else care? But, both parties make the news equally. Look up Jim McGreevey (NJ). He was crucified. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 12:17:22 AM · #31 |
| I think your stereotypes are pretty off Kelli. If we think of the term "political correctness" which party would you associate that with? Seems there are moral issues being pushed on both sides to me... |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 12:59:28 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think your stereotypes are pretty off Kelli. If we think of the term "political correctness" which party would you associate that with? Seems there are moral issues being pushed on both sides to me... |
You're right. Besides political correctness has never made any sense to me. It shouldn't be about taboo words. Any word can be used in a derogatory manner so you might as well ban them all now.
Message edited by author 2011-12-01 01:00:16. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 06:54:48 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think your stereotypes are pretty off Kelli. If we think of the term "political correctness" which party would you associate that with? Seems there are moral issues being pushed on both sides to me... |
I did write that's it's only my opinion. And I'm not referring to everyone, just an overall party lines type opinion. I've personally never associated the term PC with either party (to me it just means being inoffensive), so I looked it up on wiki to see what you meant... Current usage
Widespread use of the term politically correct and its derivatives began when it was adopted as a pejorative term by the political right in the 1990s, in the context of the Culture Wars. Writing in the New York Times in 1990,[10] Richard Bernstein noted "The term 'politically correct,' with its suggestion of Stalinist orthodoxy, is spoken more with irony and disapproval than with reverence.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2011 11:31:54 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think your stereotypes are pretty off Kelli. If we think of the term "political correctness" which party would you associate that with? Seems there are moral issues being pushed on both sides to me... |
I did write that's it's only my opinion. And I'm not referring to everyone, just an overall party lines type opinion. I've personally never associated the term PC with either party (to me it just means being inoffensive), so I looked it up on wiki to see what you meant... Current usage
Widespread use of the term politically correct and its derivatives began when it was adopted as a pejorative term by the political right in the 1990s, in the context of the Culture Wars. Writing in the New York Times in 1990,[10] Richard Bernstein noted "The term 'politically correct,' with its suggestion of Stalinist orthodoxy, is spoken more with irony and disapproval than with reverence. |
The point being the right thinks the left is pushing a moral agenda every bit as much as the left thinks the right is doing so. You resonate better with the left so the right's failings stand out to you as examples to be celebrated. It's natural to diminish the failings of your own ingroup and accentuate the failings of those outside it. I'm pretty sure everybody is prone to that fallacy. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 11:48:11 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think your stereotypes are pretty off Kelli. If we think of the term "political correctness" which party would you associate that with? Seems there are moral issues being pushed on both sides to me... |
I did write that's it's only my opinion. And I'm not referring to everyone, just an overall party lines type opinion. I've personally never associated the term PC with either party (to me it just means being inoffensive), so I looked it up on wiki to see what you meant... Current usage
Widespread use of the term politically correct and its derivatives began when it was adopted as a pejorative term by the political right in the 1990s, in the context of the Culture Wars. Writing in the New York Times in 1990,[10] Richard Bernstein noted "The term 'politically correct,' with its suggestion of Stalinist orthodoxy, is spoken more with irony and disapproval than with reverence. |
The point being the right thinks the left is pushing a moral agenda every bit as much as the left thinks the right is doing so. You resonate better with the left so the right's failings stand out to you as examples to be celebrated. It's natural to diminish the failings of your own ingroup and accentuate the failings of those outside it. I'm pretty sure everybody is prone to that fallacy. |
Ha! Actually the right thinks the left is pushing an immoral agenda. There's a difference. ;D |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 11:58:01 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Ha! Actually the right thinks the left is pushing an immoral agenda. There's a difference. ;D |
LOL. That's pretty funny. :)
EDIT to add the required smiley!
Message edited by author 2011-12-01 11:59:24. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 12:03:54 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think your stereotypes are pretty off Kelli. If we think of the term "political correctness" which party would you associate that with? Seems there are moral issues being pushed on both sides to me... |
I did write that's it's only my opinion. And I'm not referring to everyone, just an overall party lines type opinion. I've personally never associated the term PC with either party (to me it just means being inoffensive), so I looked it up on wiki to see what you meant... Current usage
Widespread use of the term politically correct and its derivatives began when it was adopted as a pejorative term by the political right in the 1990s, in the context of the Culture Wars. Writing in the New York Times in 1990,[10] Richard Bernstein noted "The term 'politically correct,' with its suggestion of Stalinist orthodoxy, is spoken more with irony and disapproval than with reverence. |
The point being the right thinks the left is pushing a moral agenda every bit as much as the left thinks the right is doing so. You resonate better with the left so the right's failings stand out to you as examples to be celebrated. It's natural to diminish the failings of your own ingroup and accentuate the failings of those outside it. I'm pretty sure everybody is prone to that fallacy. |
Ha! Actually the right thinks the left is pushing an immoral agenda. There's a difference. ;D |
Yeah but the left also thinks the right is pushing an immoral agenda (ex. greed, discrimination, etc). I don't think you're going to win this one. Best to just stick to well reasoned logic on why the left's position might be superior to the right's. When the right's arguments are religious in nature (ex gay marriage) it's pretty easy to blow holes through it. The other more reasoned arguments, less so.
Message edited by author 2011-12-01 12:04:44. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 12:11:53 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think your stereotypes are pretty off Kelli. If we think of the term "political correctness" which party would you associate that with? Seems there are moral issues being pushed on both sides to me... |
I did write that's it's only my opinion. And I'm not referring to everyone, just an overall party lines type opinion. I've personally never associated the term PC with either party (to me it just means being inoffensive), so I looked it up on wiki to see what you meant... Current usage
Widespread use of the term politically correct and its derivatives began when it was adopted as a pejorative term by the political right in the 1990s, in the context of the Culture Wars. Writing in the New York Times in 1990,[10] Richard Bernstein noted "The term 'politically correct,' with its suggestion of Stalinist orthodoxy, is spoken more with irony and disapproval than with reverence. |
The point being the right thinks the left is pushing a moral agenda every bit as much as the left thinks the right is doing so. You resonate better with the left so the right's failings stand out to you as examples to be celebrated. It's natural to diminish the failings of your own ingroup and accentuate the failings of those outside it. I'm pretty sure everybody is prone to that fallacy. |
Ha! Actually the right thinks the left is pushing an immoral agenda. There's a difference. ;D |
Yeah but the left also thinks the right is pushing an immoral agenda (ex. greed, discrimination, etc). I don't think you're going to win this one. Best to just stick to well reasoned logic on why the left's position might be superior to the right's. When the right's arguments are religious in nature (ex gay marriage) it's pretty easy to blow holes through it. The other more reasoned arguments, less so. |
LOL! Richard I'm not arguing left/right politics at all. The thread is about politicians and affairs. Some people think only the republicans are portrayed badly for doing this. I say not so. That's all. I've seen plenty of democrats take a fall for it as well. The bottom line is, first and foremost, if you're in politics, keep it in your pants. But the second thing is, don't go pointing fingers at others if you're doing it yourself. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 12:20:24 PM · #39 |
i think it was about a year ago that an article came out that some high level campaign staffer said that paying a woman a few million to lie about an affair would be "money well spent".
|
|
|
|
12/01/2011 12:46:09 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
But the second thing is, don't go pointing fingers at others if you're doing it yourself. |
I think someone great once said something very similar! |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 12:50:00 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
But the second thing is, don't go pointing fingers at others if you're doing it yourself. |
I think someone great once said something very similar! |
Nah, He's a myth and the tale is apocryphal :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2011 12:55:26 PM · #42 |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 02:09:14 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
i think it was about a year ago that an article came out that some high level campaign staffer said that paying a woman a few million to lie about an affair would be "money well spent". |
Wow, I would be interested in seeing that article. I'm surprised that anyone would say that, since admitting to be willing to commit bribery, libel and either would earn them a jail sentence. Frankly I do not believe any such article was ever published by any "high level campaign staffer" because they would never work again. They might think of doing it, they would never publish it.
Peruse the list of federal political scandals and see if you can find what I was looking for, the politician who was falsely accused of sexual impropriety. As far what the various parties get caught doing, does anyone else find it ironic that the democrats get caught chasing after money, and republicans get caught chasing after sex. Ahh, the allure of the illicit.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2011 02:15:54 PM · #44 |
| seriously how could that man have an affair he's fugly. come on. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 02:33:57 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by mike_311:
i think it was about a year ago that an article came out that some high level campaign staffer said that paying a woman a few million to lie about an affair would be "money well spent". |
Wow, I would be interested in seeing that article. I'm surprised that anyone would say that, since admitting to be willing to commit bribery, libel and either would earn them a jail sentence. Frankly I do not believe any such article was ever published by any "high level campaign staffer" because they would never work again. They might think of doing it, they would never publish it.
Peruse the list of federal political scandals and see if you can find what I was looking for, the politician who was falsely accused of sexual impropriety. As far what the various parties get caught doing, does anyone else find it ironic that the democrats get caught chasing after money, and republicans get caught chasing after sex. Ahh, the allure of the illicit. |
Might as well break it down further... List of federal political sex scandals in the United States Quite an impressive list! |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 02:47:42 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by o2bskating:
seriously how could that man have an affair he's fugly. come on. |
But power is so sexy. ;D |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 02:49:28 PM · #47 |
Great zinger:
Originally posted by David Brooks:
I think I liked the Cain moment the best because this was a presidential campaign predicated on the conviction that the candidate was not actually running for president. The whole campaign had a modernist âThis is Not a Pipeâ absurdity to it, and Iâm sorry to see him collapse, though I did see a nice tweet from somebody who observed that the only thing Herman Cain knows about foreign affairs is that he denies having had any. |
R.
Message edited by author 2011-12-01 14:49:52.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2011 03:07:28 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by o2bskating:
seriously how could that man have an affair he's fugly. come on. |
But power is so sexy. ;D |
maybe if you add a hefty bag and a 6 pack but still eew. |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 03:13:25 PM · #49 |
I see it this way... If he can get a girl (or two for that matter)... Then I can at least get one... Lol.
Looking good for me. Lol!!! |
|
|
|
12/01/2011 03:49:20 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by mike_311:
i think it was about a year ago that an article came out that some high level campaign staffer said that paying a woman a few million to lie about an affair would be "money well spent". |
Wow, I would be interested in seeing that article. I'm surprised that anyone would say that, since admitting to be willing to commit bribery, libel and either would earn them a jail sentence. Frankly I do not believe any such article was ever published by any "high level campaign staffer" because they would never work again. They might think of doing it, they would never publish it.
Peruse the list of federal political scandals and see if you can find what I was looking for, the politician who was falsely accused of sexual impropriety. As far what the various parties get caught doing, does anyone else find it ironic that the democrats get caught chasing after money, and republicans get caught chasing after sex. Ahh, the allure of the illicit. |
i wish i could find it, the person interviewed was obviously anonymous, and the article was featured on a prominent news site and i think it was linked to from drudge.
the person didn't goes as far as to say it was done, but that if it was it would be well worth the effort and cost due to the political damage it would cause and that such damage if turn out even to be false, would be hard to overcome. it was a pretty eye opening read.
i also wondered why the first Cain harassment accusers never gained much traction. if you think about it, they say couldn't speak becuase of a settlement they received. but really that long ago, how much was that settlement worth? $50k? $100k? you mean to tell me some tabloid news source wouldn't cover that cost to get the person to speak on the record?
Message edited by author 2011-12-01 15:50:16. |
|
