Our weird attitudes about sexuality get in the way of sensible debate

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Baruch Menachem, Jan 19, 2012.

  1. Baruch Menachem
    Offline

    Baruch Menachem '

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,204
    Thanks Received:
    3,235
    Trophy Points:
    185
    Ratings:
    +3,305
    In the great debate over Newt and his love life, people keep bringing up the case of Clinton.

    I believe this to be a case of apples and oranges. Clinton was in trouble for suborning perjury in a civil rights case where he was the defendant. That was also about a blow job, of course. He insisted one of the workers at the DMV give him one and she turned him down and got fired because of that.

    However during the clinton debate the Democrats kept going on and on about the blow job. Fundamentally, I think it squicked everyone out to the point they wanted the story over. Plus there was the whole april -december aspect of Monica's mental maturity and age. Normal people found the whole thing beyond disgusting.

    Presidential philandering is not new. And where he sticks his wand can be a matter of national importance. John and Robert Kennedy both shared the same girlfriend with Sam Giacanna. This, had we be wiling to talk about it seriously at the time, would have been legitimate cause for concern. The face that James Buchanan was effectively the wife of Alabama Senator King also should have got a bit more scrutiny in the run up to the Civll war.

    But over the years we have sort of thrown a blanket over Presidential private lives. For good or ill. President Cleveland's daughter Ruth was an issue in the campaign, but it did his opponents no good because he was busy discussing tariffs and the depredations of the railroads. He never did marry Ruth's mother.

    The relationships between Roosevelt and Eleanor and whomever are a matter of titillation but no historical relevance. Eisenhower and Summersby is ignored again because it is pointless and squicky.

    The fact that Nixon and Carter were uxorious did not make them good presidents. Pat Nixon's love for Dick didn't solve the Watergate issue, nor did Roselyn's affection for Jimmy reduce the inflation rate. Clinton's tomcatting didn't make him a failure.

    So what does this have to do with Newt? The basic issues here are trust, intelligence, national security and economic recovery.

    Newt's relations with women are at best reprehensible. If it were a matter of him vs someone equally intelligent and less of a cad I would gleefully go for the other option.

    however, there is no drama that he was involved with Anna Chapman or any other honey pot involved with Russian or US mafias. He does have lots of really interesting ideas about the economy and the US's relations with the rest of the world that are worth listening to. (But his actual record vis a vis Israel and the Global Warming hoax show he also has pretty bad ideas as well)

    So on balance, I have to say that given a choice between Romney and Romney care and Newt and his affection for all his weird baggage with PBS, Global Warming, playing footsie with various flaky arab regimes... I prefer Santorum. But Newt's conjugal craziness is not part of my decision tree.
     
  2. Baruch Menachem
    Offline

    Baruch Menachem '

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,204
    Thanks Received:
    3,235
    Trophy Points:
    185
    Ratings:
    +3,305
    < crickets >

    I am feeling very jealous of TM and Rdean because they can post a stupid and get 57 instant responses.

    Come on folks, doesn't anyone have anything to say to this?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  3. percysunshine
    Offline

    percysunshine Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Messages:
    16,782
    Thanks Received:
    2,266
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Sty
    Ratings:
    +5,930
    You are required to post something stupid first. If you want to compete with rdean anyway.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Baruch Menachem
    Offline

    Baruch Menachem '

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,204
    Thanks Received:
    3,235
    Trophy Points:
    185
    Ratings:
    +3,305
    Ok, so the fact we got snow yesterday is proof of global warming. Or Cooling. Or something.

    There is the stupid remark

    Now lets have a response to the op, Pretty please?
     
  5. g5000
    Offline

    g5000 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    56,171
    Thanks Received:
    9,360
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +24,621
    It isn't so much Newt's sex life, it is the hypocrisy. He impeached a President for cheating on his wife. Denying that is like a redneck denying the Civil War was about slavery.

    Newt was making a big deal of Clinton's blowjob at the same time he was cheating on his own wife.

    So it is the sheer hypocrisy that says everything about Newt. Not the sex.

    Even if you want to be a dick and say it was about Clinton lying, Newt is STILL a hypocrite. He also lied to Congress and was caught at it and is the only Speaker in history who was busted for it.


    Newt's hypocrisy continues to the present day. That's why I don't buy the "he went to God" crock of shit his bleevers swallow.

    A couple months ago, Newt went on a rant about the GSEs that led to the sub-prime crisis. He said Chris Dodd and Barney Frank should go to prison for their connections to the GSEs.

    He said this as a person who worked for Freddie Mac's top lobbyist for 7 years! All through the buildup of the GSEs which contributed to the crisis!

    Judging Newt by his own standard, he should be in prison.

    When caught by the media as having worked for Freddie Mac, Newt said he worked for them as a historian. Just how fucking stupid do you have to be to believe that? He also said he warned them that what they were doing was insane.

    Really? Gee, that must be why in 2007 he gave a speech to GSE employees praising Fannie and Freddie to the skies, and said there should be more government-sponsored entities out there.

    Then when it comes out he worked for Freddie Mac's top lobbyist for seven years, starting right after he resigned as Speaker of the House, he goes dead silent on that. Gosh, I wonder if he was hired by the lobbyist because of his powerful access to Congress and not as a historian. You think?

    The sex thing just illustrates how rotten he is. But there is much, much more rot to Gingrich than the affairs. Much more. He was rotten then, and he is rotten to the core now.

    When a man keeps changing his story as more facts of his past come to light, that should tell you everything you need to know about him.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Sunni Man
    Offline

    Sunni Man Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    40,001
    Thanks Received:
    5,328
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    Patriotic American Muslim
    Ratings:
    +12,444
    Not to change the subject; but the Civil War was about "States Rights" and not slavery. :cool:
     
  7. Baruch Menachem
    Offline

    Baruch Menachem '

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,204
    Thanks Received:
    3,235
    Trophy Points:
    185
    Ratings:
    +3,305
    Actually, I think your instance on it being the blow job is the it was all about states rights rather than slavery deal. And hypocrisy in politics is not that big a deal either.

    All the efforts and bribes etc etc were to avoid the loss of the civil rights case.

    It wasn't just the issue of he got a blow job from a dim intern. It was that you got your job by going down. do we really want government officials appointed on the casting couch? And if you said no, then you were out of a job. Blow job or no job. And the man was a feminist icon. What kind of feminism is that that promotes that kind of employment 'opportunity.'

    If you can swallow that it was 'just a blow job' than you swallow everything.

    Now, fellatio aside, did Clinton's tomcatting gett in the way of his job? By all accounts, he was good at multitasking. Is this really all that relavent to his job performance?

    Now if you could find proof that he was sleeping with someone from the Mafia or the KGB, that would be interesting sexual exchanges. Or that he was sleeping with lobbyist as payment for legislation, that would be interesting and worthwhile to discuss.
     
  8. Grampa Murked U
    Offline

    Grampa Murked U Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Messages:
    47,715
    Thanks Received:
    8,799
    Trophy Points:
    2,055
    Location:
    Kansas City
    Ratings:
    +23,971
    Sex sells darling. Always has and always will. It's human nature.

    With regard to your point on dean and tm, they get posts because they are the Jerry Springers of this site. Youre above that and the effort you put into your op deserves better. I'm just sorry that I've had too many to drink to respond to the op in an intelligent manner.

    +1 for all the effort you put into it.
     
  9. whitehall
    Online

    whitehall Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,920
    Thanks Received:
    4,363
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Western Va.
    Ratings:
    +10,903
    There is nothing weird about it. It's the good old double standard. Clinton wasn't just a philanderer, he was a world class sexual pervert enabled by his wife who is now the secretary of state.
     
  10. Gagafritz
    Online

    Gagafritz Lady Germanotta Snicks

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2011
    Messages:
    967
    Thanks Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Ratings:
    +148
    We have some sort of notion that only perfect people are qualified to be leaders or to do anything. And, that once we find out that someone is less than perfect, then we are supposed to just toss them to the curb. So apparently we only want 10 yr olds or eunechs to be our leaders. I don't know. We obviously want people with good reputation and character traits but there are very few people that haven't transgressed along the way. And, not really sure we want someone who hasn't. But, it is something to look at as a pattern or traits. I think there is a difference between having an affair 20 yrs ago versus having one in the White house while on duty and so forth.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page