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

[Baruch Menachem]

I'm in a bit of a quandary on this one. Fundamentally, everyone is entitled to a private life and - no matter who they are - they have a right not to have their personal life dragged through the mud for political point scoring or for the general consumption of the public.

Having said that, I do feel that... if one is capable of treating one's own family so badly, or one breaks the vows of marriage... then why should I trust that person to take their oath of office seriously? If people cheat on their life partner, they are unlikely to treat anyone else any better.

And for me is that I could not care less if a man has a girlfriend on the side or 100 girlfriends (or even boyfriends) on the side. I never did care.

None of that, to me, translates into his ability to do the right things in office and it never has.

But for years all we ever heard about was Clinton's morals and now it seems that all of the sudden morals don't matter. There's a lot of inconsistency on this one and I have no problem pointing it out.

Obviously to the voters it didn't matter. Fully aware of Gennifer flowers millions voted for him anyway.

If you want to play this game, if it didn't matter than, it doesn't matter now.

You can't play the game of "I didn't think it mattered then, but now I do."

 

[JimBowie1958]

So when someone says, "It wasn't about the blowjob, it was about lying", it was about the blowjob.

So you think everyone just lies to you or that we are all just so confused we cant fathom what our reasons are for wanting Clinton impeached?

lol

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

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.

The Cons can say what they want but yes, it was about the blowjob. And now they want to turn a blind eye to Newt's philandering and desire for an open marriage?

Pure hypocrisy.

Telling yourself that it was about the blow job allows you to howl hypocrisy.

Yeah, its a classic libtard dodge, isnt it?

Make up what you think your opponents *really* mean and then slam them for it.

Facing the truth of the matter, that he treated women like dirt and that if a woman had the courage to say no to him she had better shop the resume is beyond you.

We critisize Clinton for being a philanderer who used his power to get sex and the libtards just assume that we really dont have a problem with that but it *must* be something else.

Wonder why that is?

But we still face the question of what is more important to us as citizens. Voting for incompetent and uxorious like Carter and Obama, or voting for comptent slime like Clinton and Gringrich.

The fact is that some of the best leaders throughout history have been philandering drunkards.

When you need a leader, you can be forgiven for over-looking a few things.

Rape isnt one of them.

 

[Gagafritz]

So, i guess the population of divorced people shouldn't qualify for office. After all, they couldn't keep their vows for life.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear BM: Most people make decisions emotionally, and then scramble for justification behind their choices. Any excuse to rule someone out you don't like ANYWAY, any reason for forgiving someone you want to support, etc.

You can see by the inconsistencies that people are doing this.

In politics especially, I can name endless examples:

1. When people want to justify not letting government interfere and cross boundaries:
A. one group uses the ABORTION issue as the litmus test, the sacred cow you can't touch
B. one group uses the GUN issue as the platform to limit government controls
Very few people will defend BOTH issues on the same principles, but will only defend THEIR PET ISSUE while attacking people who do the same with the other!

2. Obama would push the health care bill as Constitutional by the letter of the law (since Congress legally passed it and he signed it) but it is totally off by the spirit of the law.
If you want to change Constitutional interpretation that much, it should be by CONSENSUS otherwise you are imposing legislation in an area where there are religious beliefs at stake (from abortion, to spiritual methods of healing that cannot be legislated by majority-rule, not to mention faith in free market solutions, that are indeed political and personal BELIEFS that can't be abridged or dictated by govt but must respect free will as through the private sector) Yet when it came to the immigration bill, he nixed that by the letter of the law, though "in spirit" there is nothing wrong with any citizen or state enforcing the same standards of federal government -- the bill was just written with flaws and this could have been corrected without canning the whole thing. So that shows inconsistency, and people ONLY going after THEIR PET ISSUES and not defending Constitutionality across the board for all issues.

3. With other religiously biased issues from gay marriage to the death penalty,
people will only push for THEIR beliefs to be defended by law,
but very few will push equally for OPPOSING beliefs to be EQUALLY defended
by the same Constitutional standards. That is why the conflicts go unresolved.

Once you can forgive people for doing this, then you will no longer be as upset but will come to expect and understand that this will happen.

It is still frustrating to see people "selectively" deny and forgive things in one instance, and then project blame in another, totally inconsistently while inciting others to complain who are doing the exact same thing from their side! Endless conflict in a vicious cycle...

The only way out of this self-induced loop is FORGIVENESS.
When people on both sides can admit and forgive that they are BOTH DOING THIS,
then maybe we can open up some honest dialogue and try to respect views on both sides.
Not attack one for the other, where both sides deadlock over and over.

People so silly. So sad!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Dear BM: Most people make decisions emotionally, and then scramble for justification behind their choices.

Too true. I have Aspergers Syndrome and all my life I thought people used reason to make their choices. Silly Me! Now I know its only us mental defectives that do that and its classified as a mental disorder.

1. When people want to justify not letting government interfere and cross boundaries:
A. one group uses the ABORTION issue as the litmus test, the sacred cow you can't touch
B. one group uses the GUN issue as the platform to limit government controls
Very few people will defend BOTH issues on the same principles, but will only defend THEIR PET ISSUE while attacking people who do the same with the other!

There is NOTHING silly about gun rights. It is a shame that some moms want to kill their unborn babies, but if we lose our guns, we lose all ability to remedy our worst potential problems and we become reduced to peasantry.

Aint gonna happen as long as the American people remain armed to the teeth as we are today.

And that is a GOOD thing!

 

[High_Gravity]

If a politician likes other men to fuck his wife while he watches, cool, if a politician gets a blowjob from another woman, whatever, if a politician has a boyfriend on the side, I could care less, a persons sexuality is a personal private matter and has no place on the political forum in my eyes.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

If a politician likes other men to fuck his wife while he watches, cool, if a politician gets a blowjob from another woman, whatever, if a politician has a boyfriend on the side, I could care less, a persons sexuality is a personal private matter and has no place on the political forum in my eyes.

What of the relations between the Kennedies and Giacanna? What of the Relation between Buchanan and King? They still beyond the pale of inquiry?

 

[High_Gravity]

If a politician likes other men to fuck his wife while he watches, cool, if a politician gets a blowjob from another woman, whatever, if a politician has a boyfriend on the side, I could care less, a persons sexuality is a personal private matter and has no place on the political forum in my eyes.

What of the relations between the Kennedies and Giacanna? What of the Relation between Buchanan and King? They still beyond the pale of inquiry?

I just don't care about peoples sex lives, sexuality is a personal thing and shouldn't be open for inspection.

 

[JoeB131]

It wasn't just for going after Clinton like a rabid dog (while he was schtooping someone not his wife) that makes him a raging hypocrite (but that's high up there). This is a man who attends "Value Voters" summits where he espouses "Family Values". Does "family values" now mean (to Newtie anyway) that you try to screw as many women as possible? Since when do "family values" equal having an open marriage so you can have your cake and eat it too?

Again, you weren't in that relationship and neither was I, so we can't really judge.

He gave it a go of 18 years, and frankly, this woman disgusted me just watching the clips... The man deserves a medal for going home to that awfulness...

 

[JimBowie1958]

If a politician likes other men to fuck his wife while he watches, cool, if a politician gets a blowjob from another woman, whatever, if a politician has a boyfriend on the side, I could care less, a persons sexuality is a personal private matter and has no place on the political forum in my eyes.

What of the relations between the Kennedies and Giacanna? What of the Relation between Buchanan and King? They still beyond the pale of inquiry?

I just don't care about peoples sex lives, sexuality is a personal thing and shouldn't be open for inspection.

What if they are pedophiles?

I am not trying to be a smart ass, but many people pursue sexual lifestyles that are exploitative and evil. I wouldnt want a pedophile in the White House for obvious reasons.

 

[JoeB131]

What of the relations between the Kennedies and Giacanna? What of the Relation between Buchanan and King? They still beyond the pale of inquiry?

I just don't care about peoples sex lives, sexuality is a personal thing and shouldn't be open for inspection.

What if they are pedophiles?

I am not trying to be a smart ass, but many people pursue sexual lifestyles that are exploitative and evil. I wouldnt want a pedophile in the White House for obvious reasons.

I would say if there was lawbreaking involved, that would be a different issue, yes.

 

[Unkotare]

It isn't so much Newt's sex life, it is the hypocrisy. He impeached a President for cheating on his wife. .

No, that is not correct (in many ways). You're just another liberal attempting to appeal to emotion.

 

[Unkotare]

Denying that is like a redneck denying the Civil War was about slavery.

Not to change the subject; but the Civil War was about "States Rights" and not slavery.

It was obviously about both those and other things, you fucking moron.

 

[High_Gravity]

What of the relations between the Kennedies and Giacanna? What of the Relation between Buchanan and King? They still beyond the pale of inquiry?

I just don't care about peoples sex lives, sexuality is a personal thing and shouldn't be open for inspection.

What if they are pedophiles?

I am not trying to be a smart ass, but many people pursue sexual lifestyles that are exploitative and evil. I wouldnt want a pedophile in the White House for obvious reasons.

Pedophiles prey on children who cannot legally give consent for sexual encounters, so that is illegal and the pedophiles need to be thrown in prison.

 

[Sallow]

This is the type of politics Newt, himself, founded. He's got a huge set of balls to complain about it now.

Seriously.

 

[DaGoose]

This is the type of politics Newt, himself, founded. He's got a huge set of balls to complain about it now.

Seriously.

Well said.......

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Sallow again.

 

[DaGoose]

So when someone says, "It wasn't about the blowjob, it was about lying", it was about the blowjob.

So you think everyone just lies to you or that we are all just so confused we cant fathom what our reasons are for wanting Clinton impeached?

lol

Soooooo..........

First of all it was about the blowjob.

Then it was about the lying.

Now what is it?

Lying about the blowjob.

 

[bodecea]

Denying that is like a redneck denying the Civil War was about slavery.

Not to change the subject; but the Civil War was about "States Rights" and not slavery.

The States' right to have slaves. It's in each and every one of the Confederate states' constitutions.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

Problem is clinton did something no other president did, he violated the oval office by having sex thaere and then lying about it. You did not mention that why? Problem no.2, people want to hang Newt out to dry but still kiss old mr. monicas behind.