The Democrat Worm Turns

[xsited1]

And BTW, this thread is about leftwingers, but if you want to start a thread about rightwingers then be my guest.

Which is a very natural segmentation, given that moral indignation is generally a function of the party or political label of both a) the outraged and b) the outrager. See the constant refrain of "it's bad ⇔ ¬ my party does it" permeating this thread.

Witness the absurd spectacle of not only pretending that folks like Mark Foley, Howard Scott Heldreth, and Randall Casseday are Democrats, but actually digging down to the level of campaign workers to try and pad the numbers for the argument that there are more deviants in the Democratic than the Republican ranks. When political affiliations determine what is or isn't morally acceptable in your mind, you might try to hide behind the veneer of some objective moral code, but in reality you're as emotivist as the rest of modern society.

What in the hell are you babbling about?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

This is a fascinating exercise in the perserverance of the Rightwing propaganda machine.

The Left has not been acting according to the script the Rightwing had written for them, i.e.,

that they wouldn't throw Weiner under the bus, and thus live up to their supposed lack of ethics, morality, and decency, so,

what does the machine do?

It manufactures a Plan B propaganda line that attacks the Left because it IS throwing Weiner under the bus.

The elegant simplicity of rightwing propaganda is that somehow, somewhere, no matter what a liberal does,

it can find a way of making him look bad for doing it.

 

[Greenbeard]

What in the hell are you babbling about?

A party allegiance is not a moral code. Adopting the language of morality in pursuit of political gain doesn't make you any less of an emotivist than anybody else.

That's why watching certain folks tout their (or their preferred candidate's) moral superiority solely in hopes of winning an election (or rep points? I don't really know what the point of this grandstanding is on here) is so interesting. It's a pretty frank admission that the language of morality is a means, not an end.

 

[xsited1]

What in the hell are you babbling about?

A party allegiance is not a moral code. Adopting the language of morality in pursuit of political gain doesn't make you any less of an emotivist than anybody else.

That's why watching certain folks tout their (or their preferred candidate's) moral superiority solely in hopes of winning an election (or rep points? I don't really know what the point of this grandstanding is on here) is so interesting. It's a pretty frank admission that the language of morality is a means, not an end.

Of course a party allegiance is not a moral code. The only thing that is true is that perversions are more acceptable in the Democrat Party.

 

[Greenbeard]

Of course a party allegiance is not a moral code. The only thing that is true is that perversions are more acceptable in the Democrat Party.

When your criteria for "perversion" include "being a Democrat," it's tautological that you'll believe them to be more common/acceptable in the Democratic party. That's because you're confusing party allegiance with morality. This thread isn't about morality, it's about attempting to frame an argument and dig up examples of behavior certain folks believe will be damaging or embarrassing to the party they don't favor. The language of morality is being used as a means to score a political point; that shouldn't be confused with having something to do with morality itself.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Weiner needs to stay.

Surely a Party with a KKK Grand Kleagle, a senior Senator who drowned his GF and couldn't even bother to report it until the next morning, and three POTUS's who promised “I'll have those ******* voting Democratic for the next 200 years”, gave a female intern a cum facial right in the Oval Office and most recently the Marxist Macaca in the White House, have room for a Weiner in their Big Tent

 

[DaGoose]

This is a fascinating exercise in the perserverance of the Rightwing propaganda machine.

The Left has not been acting according to the script the Rightwing had written for them, i.e.,

that they wouldn't throw Weiner under the bus, and thus live up to their supposed lack of ethics, morality, and decency, so,

what does the machine do?

It manufactures a Plan B propaganda line that attacks the Left because it IS throwing Weiner under the bus.

The elegant simplicity of rightwing propaganda is that somehow, somewhere, no matter what a liberal does,

it can find a way of making him look bad for doing it.

Don't you have some Palin emails to sift through you fucking hypocrite?

How's your latest letter to the Hawaii birth records coming?

.

 

[xsited1]

Of course a party allegiance is not a moral code. The only thing that is true is that perversions are more acceptable in the Democrat Party.

When your criteria for "perversion" include "being a Democrat," it's tautological that you'll believe them to be more common/acceptable in the Democratic party. That's because you're confusing party allegiance with morality. This thread isn't about morality, it's about attempting to frame an argument and dig up examples of behavior certain folks believe will be damaging or embarrassing to the party they don't favor. The language of morality is being used as a means to score a political point; that shouldn't be confused with having something to do with morality itself.

You are so far off base with me it's not even funny. This thread is about the Democrat Party finally "getting it." My post about the length to which leftwingers would go to defend Bill Clinton back in the 90s by saying stupid things like, "Character doesn't matter" when everyone knows it does is an example of what happened in the past. Now we are seeing a change with this reprobate named Weiner. Some people are here to score political points. I'm not one of them.

 

[DaGoose]

• Democrat Congressman Mark Foley abruptly resigned from Congress after "sexually explicit" emails surfaced showing him flirting with a 16-year old boy.

Is this a joke? Are you seriously not even reading (much less fact checking) the things you're copying and pasting here?

Of course she isn't. She blindly copies and pastes without even caring about the facts.

To the "morals" part of sex scandals.. I mean, really, I think anyone involved with this kind of shit, should just resign. It becomes a huge distraction for them, their family, their party, the country, the media.. and on and on. But in the end, it is their personal decision. However, whether it should or not, it does make it worse when the person has preached some moral and family values superiority to the gays, and generally anyone who isn't a "traditional" couple. Then it comes out what they did.. and years later, they're running for President -- as a family values man.. . That's the Republicans for you.

But anyhow.. I'll say this: at least Democrats are calling for a resignation. A step Republicans never took against Vitter. But of course that's excused.. I mean, it was just so long ago!

BOTH the head of the DNC and Pelosi called for his resignation.

Wasserman-Schultz went on the attack, pointing out that Republicans operated under a double standard.

The chairwoman said Priebus' remarks didnt "pass the straight-face test from a chair of a party none of whose leaders called for Senator Vitter, who actually broke the law, to resign, who is still serving (in) office."

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) confessed in 2007 to "a very serious sin" after being linked to a prostitution scandal.

But Wasserman-Schultz wasn't finished. She brought up recently resigned Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) who publicly admitted to a two-year extramarital affair with a campaign staffer. "You never called for his resignation, so it's a double standard and it's unacceptable."

Priebus, when asked to respond by Gregory, said he wasn't "defending these guys" and changed the subject to the economy.

Moral superiority only works when one's argument is truly moral and at least somewhat beyond reproach, it appears...

Party Heads Fight Over Weiner - Columbia Events | Examiner.com

.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Foley is different because because he was a Republican and was outed by what was the group "Citizen Concerned with Congressional weiners" I forget the exact name but they were never heard from again and I wonder if anyone asked them about Weiners wiener?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Of course a party allegiance is not a moral code. The only thing that is true is that perversions are more acceptable in the Democrat Party.

When your criteria for "perversion" include "being a Democrat," it's tautological that you'll believe them to be more common/acceptable in the Democratic party. That's because you're confusing party allegiance with morality. This thread isn't about morality, it's about attempting to frame an argument and dig up examples of behavior certain folks believe will be damaging or embarrassing to the party they don't favor. The language of morality is being used as a means to score a political point; that shouldn't be confused with having something to do with morality itself.

You had a KKK Gland Kleagle as Senate Majority Leader, remember?

 

[Salt Jones]

Some leftwingers are beginning to understand that character matters. I guess better late than never.

Senator David Vitter.

 

[Ravi]

Of course a party allegiance is not a moral code. The only thing that is true is that perversions are more acceptable in the Democrat Party.

When your criteria for "perversion" include "being a Democrat," it's tautological that you'll believe them to be more common/acceptable in the Democratic party. That's because you're confusing party allegiance with morality. This thread isn't about morality, it's about attempting to frame an argument and dig up examples of behavior certain folks believe will be damaging or embarrassing to the party they don't favor. The language of morality is being used as a means to score a political point; that shouldn't be confused with having something to do with morality itself.

You are so far off base with me it's not even funny. This thread is about the Democrat Party finally "getting it." My post about the length to which leftwingers would go to defend Bill Clinton back in the 90s by saying stupid things like, "Character doesn't matter" when everyone knows it does is an example of what happened in the past. Now we are seeing a change with this reprobate named Weiner. Some people are here to score political points. I'm not one of them.

No one ever said, "character doesn't matter."

And yes, you are here to score political points as that lie proves.

 

[xsited1]

Some leftwingers are beginning to understand that character matters. I guess better late than never.

Senator David Vitter.

You haven't a clue what this thread is about. DaGoose seems to get it by correctly pointing out that the Democratic Leaders are asking for Weiner's resignation. Why don't you get him to clue you in?

 

[xsited1]

When your criteria for "perversion" include "being a Democrat," it's tautological that you'll believe them to be more common/acceptable in the Democratic party. That's because you're confusing party allegiance with morality. This thread isn't about morality, it's about attempting to frame an argument and dig up examples of behavior certain folks believe will be damaging or embarrassing to the party they don't favor. The language of morality is being used as a means to score a political point; that shouldn't be confused with having something to do with morality itself.

You are so far off base with me it's not even funny. This thread is about the Democrat Party finally "getting it." My post about the length to which leftwingers would go to defend Bill Clinton back in the 90s by saying stupid things like, "Character doesn't matter" when everyone knows it does is an example of what happened in the past. Now we are seeing a change with this reprobate named Weiner. Some people are here to score political points. I'm not one of them.

No one ever said, "character doesn't matter."

And yes, you are here to score political points as that lie proves.

Stop lying again. It was all over the news. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

Are you trolling again or just acting stupid?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's frame the debate: it is not one of absolutes, sadly....but rather of relative merits.

The scale weighs heavily to the right.

There is no debate with me, only discussion; and my world IS one of Absolutes. Relativism is one of the things completely destroying this nation so far as I am concerned, PC.

Neither party has the first plank to be able to form a platform based on morals or values so far as I am concerned. They don't even have a set of plans on how to construct one. They both talk a good game about doing so, but nothing ever comes of it. Instead they use the same old rotted boards that have failed time and time again to try and throw together a facsimile of a platform, then beg us not to condemn it when the platform fails from lack of planning and inferior building materials.

Your arguement is based solely on the idea that.... "They're WORSE than we are!" Maybe they are, but your side has no more moral high ground to stand on. Isn't YOURS the party that ran a closet Liberal for President in 2008 and backed him up with a hypocritical female candidate for VP? No morals or values to be seen in those two selections.

Sorry, but the rules of this game are that there are only two choices, the two major parties.

Any other vote is wasted.

Each of us would love to present a candidate who is 100% aligned with our own views...but that is not the blood sport known as national politics. You know that.
So, it comes down to...and 'down' is usually the operative term, sadly- picking the lesser of two...you know the rest.


And on that basis, those of us concerned with morality, or values, or views consistent with those of the Founders, usually find the Republican choice more appropriate than the Democrat.
Those who insist on a privatization of morality, or personal view of morality, and who are more impulsive in demands for change (and hope) often tend to vote for the Democrat.


The OP was adduced because, suddenly, the Democrats felt the need to subscribe to a more right-wing view of morality....

....Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin

 

[WillowTree]

You are so far off base with me it's not even funny. This thread is about the Democrat Party finally "getting it." My post about the length to which leftwingers would go to defend Bill Clinton back in the 90s by saying stupid things like, "Character doesn't matter" when everyone knows it does is an example of what happened in the past. Now we are seeing a change with this reprobate named Weiner. Some people are here to score political points. I'm not one of them.

No one ever said, "character doesn't matter."

And yes, you are here to score political points as that lie proves.

Stop lying again. It was all over the news. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

Are you trolling again or just acting stupid?

She's not acting. Trust me.

 

[Wry Catcher]

NEITHER PARTY HAS ANY, PC.

The Republicans are just as Morally bankrupt as the Democrats. The Democrats are just as unlikely to even be able to discuss Family Values with a straight face as the Republicans are; and neither one can back the words up with the biography of their life even if the words sound good coming out of their mouths.

Let's frame the debate: it is not one of absolutes, sadly....but rather of relative merits.

The scale weighs heavily to the right.

please

for every wiener, there's a vitter

for every craig, there's a frank

for every edwards, there's a gingrich

the only thing the scale weighs is bullshit

Del has a way of cutting to the chase. For that he deserves a hearty thank you.

 

[Anachronism]

Sorry, but the rules of this game are that there are only two choices, the two major parties. Any other vote is wasted.

Then I guess I have and will continue to WASTE a huge number of votes in my life; because I will not accept that philosophy, PC.

Personally, I'm all for OUTLAWING ALL POLITICAL PARTIES AND POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES. They are about the largest part of the problem these days.

Each of us would love to present a candidate who is 100% aligned with our own views...but that is not the blood sport known as national politics. You know that. So, it comes down to...and 'down' is usually the operative term, sadly- picking the lesser of two...you know the rest.

Sorry, that's not a philosophy that I am willing to accept. Personally, given the two options, I tend to vote for the GREATER EVIL, with the hope that people will realize how much of an evil it is and actually straighten the issue out. I would rather deal with someone who I KNOW is my ENEMY rather than one whose allegiances I cannot verify at any given moment.

And on that basis, those of us concerned with morality, or values, or views consistent with those of the Founders, usually find the Republican choice more appropriate than the Democrat. Those who insist on a privatization of morality, or personal view of morality, and who are more impulsive in demands for change (and hope) often tend to vote for the Democrat.

PC, that's only because those of you who CLAIM to concern yourselves with morality and values are unwilling to actually DEMAND that someone follow those same ideals both verbally and in their lives rather than simply paying lip service to them. You folks willingly sell your allegiance to a bunch of WORDS that even you have to realize mean NOTHING to the person whose mouth they're coming out of.

I'll reserve comment on the "views consistent with those of the Founders" since I tend to believe that you and I would have very different ideas on what those views would be.

The OP was adduced because, suddenly, the Democrats felt the need to subscribe to a more right-wing view of morality....

No they're not. No more than the Republicans ever are. They're simply paying lip service to it, like every other politician.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sorry, but the rules of this game are that there are only two choices, the two major parties. Any other vote is wasted.

Then I guess I have and will continue to WASTE a huge number of votes in my life; because I will not accept that philosophy, PC.

Personally, I'm all for OUTLAWING ALL POLITICAL PARTIES AND POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES. They are about the largest part of the problem these days.

Each of us would love to present a candidate who is 100% aligned with our own views...but that is not the blood sport known as national politics. You know that. So, it comes down to...and 'down' is usually the operative term, sadly- picking the lesser of two...you know the rest.

Sorry, that's not a philosophy that I am willing to accept. Personally, given the two options, I tend to vote for the GREATER EVIL, with the hope that people will realize how much of an evil it is and actually straighten the issue out. I would rather deal with someone who I KNOW is my ENEMY rather than one whose allegiances I cannot verify at any given moment.

And on that basis, those of us concerned with morality, or values, or views consistent with those of the Founders, usually find the Republican choice more appropriate than the Democrat. Those who insist on a privatization of morality, or personal view of morality, and who are more impulsive in demands for change (and hope) often tend to vote for the Democrat.

PC, that's only because those of you who CLAIM to concern yourselves with morality and values are unwilling to actually DEMAND that someone follow those same ideals both verbally and in their lives rather than simply paying lip service to them. You folks willingly sell your allegiance to a bunch of WORDS that even you have to realize mean NOTHING to the person whose mouth they're coming out of.

I'll reserve comment on the "views consistent with those of the Founders" since I tend to believe that you and I would have very different ideas on what those views would be.

The OP was adduced because, suddenly, the Democrats felt the need to subscribe to a more right-wing view of morality....

No they're not. No more than the Republicans ever are. They're simply paying lip service to it, like every other politician.

With all due respect, then, my efforts are not meant for you...but for those with a serious intention to get their candidate elected, and understand the realities of politics.

Thank you anyway.