Colin Powell Denies Affair with Romanian Politician

[TheGreatGatsby]

You'll judge my character on a message board post, but say we shouldn't judge politicians who cheat on their spouses? Okay, lady. If you say so.

[MENTION=42498]Esmeralda[/MENTION]

That's how that's done.

Applauding his own post since no one else will.

New paradigm for "pathetic".

This is why you're an idiot. And that's not really me judging you.

Put this on a plaque somewhere...

Way to suck all context out in a fool-hearty attempt to make vain snipes.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

"Laura Bush was sober and ran a stop sign. It was an accident. Ted Kennedy was drunk and drove off a bridge. This is why you're an idiot. And that's not really me judging you."

Yea, context counts dickface. If someone is making a moral parallel between a run of the day accident and a drunken accident, then it's patently obvious that that person is an idiot. It doesn't require any sort of real judgment on my part if you will.

And for the second one, I was showing Esmerelda how to quote something without creating confusion as she had done and I quoted my great jab at her to hammer home the point. Again, context dickface.

 

[Luissa]

Liberals feel entirely justified when they "assess" a conservative's private life to include his/her sexual behavior.
Claiming the high moral ground doesn't make it moral ground. You're merely another hypocrite, Esmerelda.

And so are you and other conservatives. Lol

 

[dilloduck]

Liberals feel entirely justified when they "assess" a conservative's private life to include his/her sexual behavior.
Claiming the high moral ground doesn't make it moral ground. You're merely another hypocrite, Esmerelda.

And so are you and other conservatives. Lol

I outta NEG rep your black ass for that !

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Liberals feel entirely justified when they "assess" a conservative's private life to include his/her sexual behavior.
Claiming the high moral ground doesn't make it moral ground. You're merely another hypocrite, Esmerelda.

And so are you and other conservatives. Lol

Yes; but it's not the conservatives screaming you can't judge. Way to hammer the point home, Luissa; even if you didn't know it.

 

[Pogo]

Okay. If you're not talking about going to jail then I have no idea why you mentioned her father keeping her out of trouble. What trouble? Was she going to have to wear a scarlet FC for fatal crash?

I am not doing an ad hominem fallacy because I'm clearly stating my cases. The name calling is just a little something for me to make sure you know how moronic I think your assertions are. And speaking of fallacies; it's a fallacy to assert that that the use of a name calling excludes intellectualism and rightness. But, nice try on that one.

As for sexual behavior in a public forum; it actually is up to you and me to decide what is right and wrong or rather what is acceptable and unacceptable. If I want to go have sex on the sidewalk; it's against the law. Furthermore, public opinion will always be a prevalent factor in any matter whether you like it or not.

And I said nothing that was hypocritical. Did I say I have the right to know everything about CP's sex life? No. But, when he gets exposed and it's out there, then I am within my rights to make judgments. None of that means that I'm against privacy. Nor is privacy a right wing concept by the way. Maybe, you just forgot cos your guy is in office. Somehow, it was a huge issue when Bush was in office. But, I'm use to libtard's revolving door values.

You apparently don't understand what fallacious thinking is. You are side stepping the issue regarding the inappropriateness of making an issue of a politician's personal sexual life. Also, inserting what is against the law is a red herring. Whether or not something is public opinion is not relevant to whether or not they are doing their job. Being a gossip and judging people on their personal behavior is one thing; saying someone doesn't have the right to hold a job because of their personal behavior is another. Assuming that it's okay to judge anyone based on what they might have done "when it gets out there" is completly without any logical or rational basis. And more name calling really does indicate the inability to think and to express yourself in rational, logical terms rather than using ad hominems. Done here. Some people are not worth the effort to debate. And that is not an ad hominem: it is truly what I think. I have no patience to spend my effort trying to reason with someone who is not capable of intellectually honest and reasoned thought.

do you not see the foolhardy of a public official, particularly within our state department, having an affair, particularly with foreigners? Do you not see the fact they are now in a position that if that person overhears anything, sees anything, can now use it as blackmail? Or they could sell that info to the highest bidder? Or they could possibly be a spy?

Once again -- baseless paranoia. You've got no evidence, no indication, no nuttin'. Hell, you don't even know there was an affair. To proclaim some scenario is theoretically possible doesn't make it factual, or even likely.

 

[dilloduck]

You apparently don't understand what fallacious thinking is. You are side stepping the issue regarding the inappropriateness of making an issue of a politician's personal sexual life. Also, inserting what is against the law is a red herring. Whether or not something is public opinion is not relevant to whether or not they are doing their job. Being a gossip and judging people on their personal behavior is one thing; saying someone doesn't have the right to hold a job because of their personal behavior is another. Assuming that it's okay to judge anyone based on what they might have done "when it gets out there" is completly without any logical or rational basis. And more name calling really does indicate the inability to think and to express yourself in rational, logical terms rather than using ad hominems. Done here. Some people are not worth the effort to debate. And that is not an ad hominem: it is truly what I think. I have no patience to spend my effort trying to reason with someone who is not capable of intellectually honest and reasoned thought.

do you not see the foolhardy of a public official, particularly within our state department, having an affair, particularly with foreigners? Do you not see the fact they are now in a position that if that person overhears anything, sees anything, can now use it as blackmail? Or they could sell that info to the highest bidder? Or they could possibly be a spy?

Once again -- baseless paranoia. You've got no evidence, no indication, no nuttin'. Hell, you don't even know there was an affair. To proclaim some scenario is theoretically possible doesn't make it factual, or even likely.

I still have you down for being pro-adultery. That's what counts.

 

[Pogo]

do you not see the foolhardy of a public official, particularly within our state department, having an affair, particularly with foreigners? Do you not see the fact they are now in a position that if that person overhears anything, sees anything, can now use it as blackmail? Or they could sell that info to the highest bidder? Or they could possibly be a spy?

Once again -- baseless paranoia. You've got no evidence, no indication, no nuttin'. Hell, you don't even know there was an affair. To proclaim some scenario is theoretically possible doesn't make it factual, or even likely.

I still have you down for being pro-adultery. That's what counts.

Apples and Harley-Davidsons. "Adultery" is simply not a part of Colin Powell's job, whether by its presence or absence. It is what we call "irrelevant". Neither Secretary of State nor Army General contain any biblical commandments in their job description. Matter of fact I can't think of any occupation that does.

Nor have we debated the concept of "adultery" here, so all you have to go on is speculation based on nothing.

 

[dilloduck]

Once again -- baseless paranoia. You've got no evidence, no indication, no nuttin'. Hell, you don't even know there was an affair. To proclaim some scenario is theoretically possible doesn't make it factual, or even likely.

I still have you down for being pro-adultery. That's what counts.

Apples and Harley-Davidsons. "Adultery" is simply not a part of Colin Powell's job, whether by its presence or absence. It is what we call "irrelevant". Neither Secretary of State nor Army General contain any biblical commandments in their job description. Matter of fact I can't think of any occupation that does.

Nor have we debated the concept of "adultery" here, so all you have to go on is speculation based on nothing.

There's no needs to defend your beliefs. Lots of people think adultery is OK.

 

[Pogo]

I still have you down for being pro-adultery. That's what counts.

Apples and Harley-Davidsons. "Adultery" is simply not a part of Colin Powell's job, whether by its presence or absence. It is what we call "irrelevant". Neither Secretary of State nor Army General contain any biblical commandments in their job description. Matter of fact I can't think of any occupation that does.

Nor have we debated the concept of "adultery" here, so all you have to go on is speculation based on nothing.

There's no needs to defend your beliefs. Lots of people think adultery is OK.

Right, there isn't, because we haven't brought them up.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Once again -- baseless paranoia. You've got no evidence, no indication, no nuttin'. Hell, you don't even know there was an affair. To proclaim some scenario is theoretically possible doesn't make it factual, or even likely.

I still have you down for being pro-adultery. That's what counts.

Apples and Harley-Davidsons. "Adultery" is simply not a part of Colin Powell's job, whether by its presence or absence. It is what we call "irrelevant". Neither Secretary of State nor Army General contain any biblical commandments in their job description. Matter of fact I can't think of any occupation that does.

Nor have we debated the concept of "adultery" here, so all you have to go on is speculation based on nothing.

Was adultery not a part of Petraeus's job? Go ahead and post the post showing us you made that argument in regards to that scandal.

 

[Pogo]

I still have you down for being pro-adultery. That's what counts.

Apples and Harley-Davidsons. "Adultery" is simply not a part of Colin Powell's job, whether by its presence or absence. It is what we call "irrelevant". Neither Secretary of State nor Army General contain any biblical commandments in their job description. Matter of fact I can't think of any occupation that does.

Nor have we debated the concept of "adultery" here, so all you have to go on is speculation based on nothing.

Was adultery not a part of Petraeus's job? Go ahead and post the post showing us you made that argument in regards to that scandal.

There is no such post, because I've never posted about Petraeus at all.

See, I don't consider these bullshit stories "scandals". I consider them a bunch of adults acting like a four year old toddler who's just discovered poo-poo. I'm only in this one for the fallacy gold mine.

And I've never posted about "adultery" either.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Apples and Harley-Davidsons. "Adultery" is simply not a part of Colin Powell's job, whether by its presence or absence. It is what we call "irrelevant". Neither Secretary of State nor Army General contain any biblical commandments in their job description. Matter of fact I can't think of any occupation that does.

Nor have we debated the concept of "adultery" here, so all you have to go on is speculation based on nothing.

Was adultery not a part of Petraeus's job? Go ahead and post the post showing us you made that argument in regards to that scandal.

There is no such post, because I've never posted about Petraeus at all.

See, I don't consider these bullshit stories "scandals". I consider them a bunch of adults acting like a four year old toddler who's just discovered poo-poo. I'm only in this one for the fallacy gold mine.

And I've never posted about "adultery" either.

Alright. Nonetheless, your assertion that affairs are not newsworthy is irrational. Your assertion that they cannot affect business is juvenile. Low character people in high positions is dangerous.

 

[Pogo]

Was adultery not a part of Petraeus's job? Go ahead and post the post showing us you made that argument in regards to that scandal.

There is no such post, because I've never posted about Petraeus at all.

See, I don't consider these bullshit stories "scandals". I consider them a bunch of adults acting like a four year old toddler who's just discovered poo-poo. I'm only in this one for the fallacy gold mine.

And I've never posted about "adultery" either.

Alright. Nonetheless, your assertion that affairs are not newsworthy is irrational. Your assertion that they cannot affect business is juvenile. Low character people in high positions is dangerous.

Um, I hardly think you're qualified to judge "low" character. Especially from afar with thirdhand information from a hacker.

Perhaps that's the difference: you presume to judge people's character based on irrelevant bullshit stories. I don't.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

There is no such post, because I've never posted about Petraeus at all.

See, I don't consider these bullshit stories "scandals". I consider them a bunch of adults acting like a four year old toddler who's just discovered poo-poo. I'm only in this one for the fallacy gold mine.

And I've never posted about "adultery" either.

Alright. Nonetheless, your assertion that affairs are not newsworthy is irrational. Your assertion that they cannot affect business is juvenile. Low character people in high positions is dangerous.

Um, I hardly think you're qualified to judge "low" character. Especially from afar with thirdhand information from a hacker.

Perhaps that's the difference: you presume to judge people's character based on irrelevant bullshit stories. I don't.

I could give a **** what you think I'm qualified to do. And you have an attitude that judging people's character is somehow wrong. It's that type of nonsense that gets nations saddled with corrupt leadership.

 

[Pogo]

Alright. Nonetheless, your assertion that affairs are not newsworthy is irrational. Your assertion that they cannot affect business is juvenile. Low character people in high positions is dangerous.

Um, I hardly think you're qualified to judge "low" character. Especially from afar with thirdhand information from a hacker.

Perhaps that's the difference: you presume to judge people's character based on irrelevant bullshit stories. I don't.

I could give a **** what you think I'm qualified to do.

Hey, it's your presumption, not mine. In bold above.

And you have an attitude that judging people's character is somehow wrong. It's that type of nonsense that gets nations saddled with corrupt leadership.

Is it?

Or is it jumping to hasty conclusions every time some muckraker comes up with a salacious headline?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Um, I hardly think you're qualified to judge "low" character. Especially from afar with thirdhand information from a hacker.

Perhaps that's the difference: you presume to judge people's character based on irrelevant bullshit stories. I don't.

I could give a **** what you think I'm qualified to do.

Hey, it's your presumption, not mine. In bold above.

And you have an attitude that judging people's character is somehow wrong. It's that type of nonsense that gets nations saddled with corrupt leadership.

Is it?

Or is it jumping to hasty conclusions every time some muckraker comes up with a salacious headline?

It's not a presumption. It's common sense. Geez dude. It's always going back and arguing the most elemental things with you, isn't it? I have to wonder if that nonsense is by design or if you just lack that much common sense or if you just haphazardly debate.

I get that you think the media has no business reporting this stuff. But, you're wrong. It's there job to report. Do they sensationalize some news and bury important stories? All the time. But, not reporting it would otherwise be irresponsible.

Just because you've deemed that sexual affairs are not newsworthy, does not make it so. And in fact, you willfully ignore a myriad of complications because of your agenda.

 

[Pogo]

I could give a **** what you think I'm qualified to do.

Hey, it's your presumption, not mine. In bold above.

And you have an attitude that judging people's character is somehow wrong. It's that type of nonsense that gets nations saddled with corrupt leadership.

Is it?

Or is it jumping to hasty conclusions every time some muckraker comes up with a salacious headline?

It's not a presumption. It's common sense. Geez dude. It's always going back and arguing the most elemental things with you, isn't it? I have to wonder if that nonsense is by design or if you just lack that much common sense or if you just haphazardly debate.

It's very simple. I have basic principles that I stay with. And one of them is that bullshit news is bullshit.

Btw, "common sense" IS a presumption by definition.

Again, I can't make presumptions about people I've never met based on a specious unconfirmed accusation of something that's irrelevant to the subject in the first place. Colin Powell was the Secretary of State of my country. He wasn't my freaking husband.

I get that you think the media has no business reporting this stuff. But, you're wrong. It's there job to report.

It's their job to report news. Which this simply isn't. And it didn't come from the media anyway; it came from an e-mail hacker. Now it's mildly news that Powell's e-mail was hacked, but that should be the end of the story. As far as actual news goes. All that salacious gossip bullshit is to keep the unwashed entertained.

Just because you've deemed that sexual affairs are not newsworthy, does not make it so.

'

Far as I'm concerned, of course it does. I'm simply not interested in other people's personal affairs. They're none of my damn business.

And in fact, you willfully ignore a myriad of complications because of your agenda.

I don't have an "agenda" here, except to note the fallacies. That's plenty of work for Captain Obvious already.

The "complications", I submit, are in the imagination of those attracted to shiny-object bullshit news like this. Not something I need to saddle myself with.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

A. Common sense is not a presumption, dude. Common sense is common sense. Ironcially, not everyone has common sense (You would be a case in point).
B. Again, I'm fine with your belief that the media does not have pure or even good motives. Regardless, they are not out of line for reporting the story about a public figure, presuming their facts are correct.
C. I am fine with you not personally investing in someone else's affairs. That is your choice. Nonetheless, many people believe that such matters are of importance. And you cannot adequately dispute that they have no justification for that position. "It's not their damn business," is not a sufficient reason. In reality, what public figures do in regards to what is reported, is exactly their business at least in a broad sense.
D. You do have an agenda. That agenda is to excuse to the personal misdeeds of public figures and to denounce the media for reporting such stories. Don't say you don't have an agenda when it's patently obvious that you do.

 

[Pogo]

A. Common sense is not a presumption, dude. Common sense is common sense. Ironcially, not everyone has common sense (You would be a case in point).
B. Again, I'm fine with your belief that the media does not have pure or even good motives. Regardless, they are not out of line for reporting the story about a public figure, presuming their facts are correct.
C. I am fine with you not personally investing in someone else's affairs. That is your choice. Nonetheless, many people believe that such matters are of importance. And you cannot adequately dispute that they have no justification for that position. "It's not their damn business," is not a sufficient reason. In reality, what public figures do in regards to what is reported, is exactly their business at least in a broad sense.
D. You do have an agenda. That agenda is to excuse to the personal misdeeds of public figures and to denounce the media for reporting such stories. Don't say you don't have an agenda when it's patently obvious that you do.

A. No, you can't quantify "common sense". It's your opinion, nothing more.

B. The goal of commercial media is to make money. It's never been above selling snake oil to the gullible to do that. That doesn't make it "news".

C. Actually it is sufficient reason. See, I'm not claiming a position here; you are. I don't have the burden of proof to prove the negative that it's none of our business -- you have the burden to prove it is.

D. I don't have the agenda. You do (see (C)). And the hacker does. My position is I'm simply leaving Colin Powell the **** alone. Gonna be hard to make an "agenda" out of that.