fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I'm wondering if Fox also refers to vicodin as 'the drug that Bret Favre was addicted to.'
Don't cry for me Argentina...
- Thread starter foxpaws
- Start date
Well- here he admits to the lewd emails he sent to the young (underage) male interns...
And a couple of interns have come forward stating that they had sex with him, but after they were over 18... it is their word against his - but it really doesn't matter, it would consenting adults at that point, there wouldn't be any 'charges'.
As I said - if he had sex with the interns after they were 18 it is just that - sex with some guy...
I didn't know that Favre was addicted to vicodin..
Now, stop trying to raise the goalposts in an attempt smear Limbaugh.
And I am curious Shag - why did you bring up Limbaugh in a thread about sex scandals in politics? Why go down the different road? I didn't say anything about misdirect or anything - it was an interest place to go...
So, why did you bring up Limbaugh - he has absolutely nothing to do with this thread...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
How interesting. Wonder why that is.
Now, stop trying to raise the goalposts in an attempt smear Limbaugh.
like that's tough to do. like when he got caught with viagra not of his prescription.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/27/national/main1753947.shtml
don't you have some logs to cut?
There is no reason for me to spell it out again. The reasoning and connection back to the original topic is clear for all to see if you take the time to go back and re-read the relevant posts. Don't play ignorant here. We all know better.
So, I went back to post #16 – the first one where you mention Rush
So, the magic words are, “Here is a good example”?
I can use a past president’s actual debt numbers to give historical background to the current administration’s projected debt numbers, and I get raked…. But obviously it is because I forgot to use the magic words, “Here is a good example.”
Because shag, you can use a celebrity’s past drug addiction to illustrate why it is wrong to label a politician’s current sex scandal as hypocritical…
So, it doesn’t have to even be the same ‘job’ (my debt example was, your hypocritical example wasn’t), the same issue (once again, my example was and yours wasn’t), to be used as a ‘good example’. It just needs to loosely follow some sort of path.
Right, shag?
More distortion/mischaracterization from mrs. foxpaws. Not surprisingly, in a surreptitious attempt to smear me. Again.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
You're "obfuscating", Limbaugh [may have] unknowingly became addicted to drugs, Sanford knew he was acting in what he considers "immoral", while on the job's dollar, it seems.
So he is indeed a hypocrite, as are those Dems who call for his dismissal, yet didn't under Clinton. I personally don't know who they are though; maybe you can make a list.
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
You are misinterpreting me. I am, in no way defending Sanford or saying he is not a hypocrite. However, the hypocrite claim, in his case is irrelevant as it seems to be used; to imply some sort of disingenuousness on his part.
He is not a hypocrite because he claims some arbitrary standard that he doesn't hold himself to but holds others to. He is a hypocrite because he failed to hold himself to a standard that he generally holds everyone to, including himself.
His hypocrisy was not a willful attempt at deception to demonize someone or some group but a genuine lack of judgment and a character flaw on his part. That is a very important distinction to make.
His actions are not wrong because they are hypocritical and the accurate hypocritical charge doesn't make them any more wrong then they already are. His actions are wrong because they go against the moral standards of society and his own personal moral standards.
You even admitted that Sanford considered what he did immoral. That is decidedly different then someone claiming a high standard of someone else that they have no intention of holding themselves to in a similar situation; a disingenuous double standard. There was nothing disingenuous about Sanford's aspiring to that standard. He was simply unable to live up to it and now deserves whatever he gets.
In fact, Mr. Limbaugh gave a little monologue on this yesterday that makes an interesting point on this (I'll try to cut out some of the "anti-Dem" stuff to make it more readable for some of you, but some is very relevant to his point as it serves as a contrast so I felt it needed to be left in):
...I'm not saying hypocrisy is a virtue, but it is a necessary evil. Society needs it. "But, Rush! But, Rush! How can you say that? Isn't hypocrisy preaching moral values and not living up to them?" Yeah, that's exactly right! That's what, in this case, hypocrisy is. But hypocrisy does not deny moral values. If somebody can be immoral and not be a hypocrite, then what's happened to standards?
Hypocrisy does two things, both at the same time: Hypocrisy shows...that there are moral values in a culture. Without moral values in a culture, it would not be possible for anybody to be a hypocrite. The fact that we are calling Sanford a hypocrite is the proof that there are still standards of dignity and morality that apply in our society. It also shows... This hypocrisy, it also shows that violating those moral values are wrong. We all think Sanford's an idiot, right? We all think he's stupid. We all think he's wrong. Especially when you read the statement his wife issued. His wife said, "I'm willing to take him back. I'm willing." She said, "I view my life. I've got one legacy in my life, and that's the character and dignity I instill in my children," and that's why what my husband has done is so hurtful and so harmful.
"All the work I've done helping to get him elected and helping him do his job means nothing to me if my kids don't turn out." Why does she care? Well, because morality and dignity matter. And without hypocrisy, we wouldn't know what morality and dignity are. But moral equivalency, on the other hand, that rationalizes away any morality. The Democrat Party exists on moral equivalence. The Democrat Party exists on the concept of defining deviancy down to where nothing is wrong and nobody can be criticized. And I think any healthy society needs moral values -- and, therefore, must preserve them. Hypocrisy is a lot more helpful in preserving morality than moral equivalence is.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a culture with no morality, where anything goes and there is nothing wrong. Then you wouldn't have to worry about raising your kids. Just give birth and let them do what they want to do. It doesn't matter because there's nothing wrong. But you know there are. You know there are certain things -- and, by the way, since we're all human and we all stray and we all stray off the path, it doesn't mean morality is wrong and it doesn't disqualify somebody who strays from knowing what morality is.
...We all have that little voice in our heads, our conscience. We all know when we're doing something wrong. We all know it. If we just listen to the voice in our heads more often than we do, then we'd do fewer things wrong. But we're human. It doesn't mean that we're disqualified from knowing right from wrong, just because we violate the tenets...I'm simply saying that, 'Give me a society any day where there is hypocrisy as opposed to a society with moral equivalence,' because then we've defined deviancy so far down that we've decided we can't do anything about that particular wrong so we're not even going to try to anymore. We will cease to exist as a functioning society.
Hypocrisy does two things, both at the same time: Hypocrisy shows...that there are moral values in a culture. Without moral values in a culture, it would not be possible for anybody to be a hypocrite. The fact that we are calling Sanford a hypocrite is the proof that there are still standards of dignity and morality that apply in our society. It also shows... This hypocrisy, it also shows that violating those moral values are wrong. We all think Sanford's an idiot, right? We all think he's stupid. We all think he's wrong. Especially when you read the statement his wife issued. His wife said, "I'm willing to take him back. I'm willing." She said, "I view my life. I've got one legacy in my life, and that's the character and dignity I instill in my children," and that's why what my husband has done is so hurtful and so harmful.
"All the work I've done helping to get him elected and helping him do his job means nothing to me if my kids don't turn out." Why does she care? Well, because morality and dignity matter. And without hypocrisy, we wouldn't know what morality and dignity are. But moral equivalency, on the other hand, that rationalizes away any morality. The Democrat Party exists on moral equivalence. The Democrat Party exists on the concept of defining deviancy down to where nothing is wrong and nobody can be criticized. And I think any healthy society needs moral values -- and, therefore, must preserve them. Hypocrisy is a lot more helpful in preserving morality than moral equivalence is.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a culture with no morality, where anything goes and there is nothing wrong. Then you wouldn't have to worry about raising your kids. Just give birth and let them do what they want to do. It doesn't matter because there's nothing wrong. But you know there are. You know there are certain things -- and, by the way, since we're all human and we all stray and we all stray off the path, it doesn't mean morality is wrong and it doesn't disqualify somebody who strays from knowing what morality is.
...We all have that little voice in our heads, our conscience. We all know when we're doing something wrong. We all know it. If we just listen to the voice in our heads more often than we do, then we'd do fewer things wrong. But we're human. It doesn't mean that we're disqualified from knowing right from wrong, just because we violate the tenets...I'm simply saying that, 'Give me a society any day where there is hypocrisy as opposed to a society with moral equivalence,' because then we've defined deviancy so far down that we've decided we can't do anything about that particular wrong so we're not even going to try to anymore. We will cease to exist as a functioning society.
Does that clear things up for you?
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
I admitted? I quoted what he said about himself, I have no way on knowing what truly lies in the man's heart.
It should also be pointed out, he [most likely] holds his actions as "immoral" because he was caught, had he been better at hiding his shenanigans, he'd still be doing it (or his mistress in this case), as this wasn't a one-time lapse in judgment and he happened to get caught.
Since you quoted Rush, here's another Rush bit on Sanford, I found it funny, good ole rushing passing the buck.
This Sanford business! I'll tell you, one of the first thoughts that crossed my mind, with Mark Sanford ... this is the first thought: What he did defies logic. This is ... more than being 180 degrees out of phase because of lust, or love. To split the scene for five days, and we know he's been separated, and he knows, by the way, that the newspaper in his state has the emails between him and his concubine down there in Argentina, he knows this. He knows that somebody knows what's going on. He knows his wife knows. So he ups and leaves for five days, doesn't leave anybody in charge of the state, in case there's an emergency.
This is almost like: I don't give a damn! Country's going to hell in a hand-basket. I just want out of here!
He had just tried to fight the stimulus money coming to South Carolina. He didn't want any part of it. He lost the battle and said "What the hell? The Federal government is taking over! I want to enjoy life!" -Rush Limbaugh
Very true. And it looks like his wife found out by finding letters from the mistress. The wife had apparently known for a while. They weren't living together from what I understand.
A psychologist on one of the 24 hour news stations was talking about the psychology behind these cheating politicians and pointed out that there is a type of narcissism that goes along with many cheaters, especially when they are politicians. They rationalize ignoring their vows by thinking that they are too good to get caught, or they deserve it so they can circumvent the standard. They generally hold the moral standard, but get so full of themselves that they start to think they are an exception to that standard. They basically deceive themselves. The psychology behind these things is quite interesting.
I assume you realize he was being rather facetious in that passage; comic exaggeration.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
I do hope so, then.
I do believe that the controversy surrounding his affair was politically constructed. The press had the "love letters" since December. I would even speculate that this was designed to be a political distraction to assist the administration in passing their nightmarish energy tax this evening.
Regardless. I think Sanford should resign.
Especially upon news that he used $8k worth of state travel expenses for one of his trips to South America. Although he's since paid it back, he needs to move on.
Agreed.