GOP, the party of high morals can be proud of

[Inthemiddle]

Oh horseshit, everyone lives by some personal code of morals...they just differ in degrees. Some set higher expectations for themselves. Of course being human, they'll probably fall short more often than not...but it's not judgmental to strive for your personal best.

I never said it was judgmental to strive for one's "personal best" (whatever that means). What I'm saying is that a person who says such and such is wrong, then does it, is in no better a "moral" position than someone who says "it's not wrong." But the first person has created an additional moral infringement with their judgmentalism/hypocrisy.

It is not necessary to proclaim various things immoral in order to "strive for your personal best." For example, my sister is married. She she's never said that divorce is immoral. Yet she works to nurture and maintain her marriage. She can strive to make her marriage work without having to view divorce as immoral.

 

[California Girl]

Better to have morals and fail to attain them than to have none to start with.

Eh, I have to disagree. When a person fails to attain their own morals, they are no better than the person with no morals. But they've made their own situation worse by having been judgmental enough to formulate those morals in the first place. Thus, they have the greater offense.

Human beings are mortal. We all make mistakes - I appreciate that might come as a shock to you... it means that your Messiah has and will make mistakes. If you would prefer to live without morals, that is your call. I will continue to strive to attain mine.... you are free to live an immoral life... as long as you do not affect others with your amoral behavior.

Moron.

 

[Zoom-boing]

the fact that their beloved savior, Ronald Reagan was the first and only President who was previously divorced.

Was Ronald Reagan the first president to get divorced

Newt is trying to break that record...many, many times over.

You think that Bill "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton and womanizer JFK are somehow superior because they stayed married?

This thread is a fail.

 

[JimH52]

So, will Newt be the second President to enter the WH who has been divorced? I say he has as much chance as Cain has to take a lie detector exam....which is 0%.

GOP Morals.....

 

[Dot Com]

jeff gannon Jeff Gannon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Inthemiddle]

Human beings are mortal. We all make mistakes

Indeed we do. But that's not really the issue here, is it? The question is, what actions, mistake or otherwise, constitute a moral defect? "Making a mistake" does not excuse moral value of an action. A person can steal, and realize it was a mistake, but does that excuse their stealing as being immoral?

BTW, I have a feeling that this discussion is going to hinge on inappropriate equivocations of morals and ethics.

I appreciate that might come as a shock to you.

And just when I thought that there was reasonable discussion to be had, you have to come out with mud slinging.

it means that your Messiah has and will make mistakes.

I don't have a "Messiah." I'm not sure why we have to bring up religious affiliations in this.

If you would prefer to live without morals, that is your call.

And when did I say that I prefer to live without morals? Or did you really mean ethics? Either way, this comment is unfounded.

I will continue to strive to attain mine.

Good for you.

you are free to live an immoral life.

Again with the mud slinging. What purpose does this serve? You can't honestly think you're advancing the discussion with stuff like this, do you?

as long as you do not affect others with your amoral behavior.

Now, this is an interesting position. You affirm other people's right to live based on their own version of morality, as long as it doesn't infringe upon another person's rights. That's a perfectly reasonable position. But it conflicts with your first argument earlier in this thread. Your argument, that it's "better" to fall short of one's morals, than to make no moral claim in the first place, requires an expectation for other people to live within some kind of moral system. Which would not allow for the position you've expressed here, that people are free to live "amorally."

Moron.

Again, with the mud slinging. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them a moron. And calling someone names will not make their arguments any less valid.

 

[Sherry]

Oh horseshit, everyone lives by some personal code of morals...they just differ in degrees. Some set higher expectations for themselves. Of course being human, they'll probably fall short more often than not...but it's not judgmental to strive for your personal best.

I never said it was judgmental to strive for one's "personal best" (whatever that means). What I'm saying is that a person who says such and such is wrong, then does it, is in no better a "moral" position than someone who says "it's not wrong." But the first person has created an additional moral infringement with their judgmentalism/hypocrisy.

It is not necessary to proclaim various things immoral in order to "strive for your personal best." For example, my sister is married. She she's never said that divorce is immoral. Yet she works to nurture and maintain her marriage. She can strive to make her marriage work without having to view divorce as immoral.

You are afraid to set yourself up for failure. As an example, if I think that lying is wrong, but then I tell a lie, my solution is not to just say, "Oh **** it, I'll just determine that lying is an acceptable part of life, and then I'll never have to be concerned about honesty again." No thanks.

 

[The T]

Oh horseshit, everyone lives by some personal code of morals...they just differ in degrees. Some set higher expectations for themselves. Of course being human, they'll probably fall short more often than not...but it's not judgmental to strive for your personal best.

I never said it was judgmental to strive for one's "personal best" (whatever that means). What I'm saying is that a person who says such and such is wrong, then does it, is in no better a "moral" position than someone who says "it's not wrong." But the first person has created an additional moral infringement with their judgmentalism/hypocrisy.

It is not necessary to proclaim various things immoral in order to "strive for your personal best." For example, my sister is married. She she's never said that divorce is immoral. Yet she works to nurture and maintain her marriage. She can strive to make her marriage work without having to view divorce as immoral.

You are afraid to set yourself up for failure. As an example, if I think that lying is wrong, but then I tell a lie, my solution is not to just say, "Oh **** it, I'll just determine that lying is an acceptable part of life, and then I'll never have to be concerned about honesty again." No thanks.

You know you've set honesty ahead quite a bit don't you?

Good for you. Good form!

 

[Luissa]

The American Left will never forgive Ronnie for defeating their home team so badly they had to abandon Eastern Europe and left them no choice but to complete their takeover of the Democrat Party

Boo ******* Hoo

Do you guys actually believe the bullshit you write?

 

[georgephillip]

the fact that their beloved savior, Ronald Reagan was the first and only President who was previously divorced.

Was Ronald Reagan the first president to get divorced

Newt is trying to break that record...many, many times over.

"The nation is still recovering from a crushing recession that sent unemployment hovering above nine percent for two straight years. The president, mindful of soaring deficits, is pushing bold action to shore up the nation's balance sheet.

"Cloaking himself in the language of class warfare, he calls on a hostile Congress to end wasteful tax breaks for the rich. 'We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share,' he thunders to a crowd in Georgia.

"Such tax loopholes, he adds, 'sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary – and that's crazy.'

"Preacher-like, the president draws the crowd into a call-and-response. 'Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver,' he demands, 'or less?'

"The crowd, sounding every bit like the protesters from Occupy Wall Street, roars back: 'MORE!'

"The year was 1985. The president was Ronald Wilson Reagan.

How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich | Politics News | Rolling Stone

 

[Luissa]

Not sure the GOP is 'The Party of High Morals' but they are likely the Party of more morals than the other Party. Something to chew on i guess. Have a great Saturday.

I don't think either party has more morals than the other.
Stating anything different Is lying.

 

[Leweman]

If a Democrat ( the party of no morals) does something to act morally, does that mean Republicans (the party of morals) can hold it against them? I'm not saying it will ever happen, just wondering the protocol if it does.

 

[DaGoose]

the fact that their beloved savior, Ronald Reagan was the first and only President who was previously divorced.

Was Ronald Reagan the first president to get divorced

Newt is trying to break that record...many, many times over.

You think that Bill "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton and womanizer JFK are somehow superior because they stayed married?

This thread is a fail.

Personally I don't care about someone's personal moral failings.

JFK and Clinton were both ten times the President tham W Bush.

If Bush had been even half the President Clinton was I would have ordered a dozen blowjobs for him.

 

[Inthemiddle]

You are afraid to set yourself up for failure

That is, at best, a gross assumption. Just because a person does not attach a moral value to a thing, does not mean they are "afraid to set yourself up for failure" of living up to that moral. For example, I don't find any moral value abstaining from using the internet. That doesn't mean I'm afraid I'll fail if I set that as a moral goal. I sincerely don't see anything immoral about using it.

 

[Sherry]

You are afraid to set yourself up for failure

That is, at best, a gross assumption. Just because a person does not attach a moral value to a thing, does not mean they are "afraid to set yourself up for failure" of living up to that moral. For example, I don't find any moral value abstaining from using the internet. That doesn't mean I'm afraid I'll fail if I set that as a moral goal. I sincerely don't see anything immoral about using it.

You snipped my post...interesting.

 

[Inthemiddle]

You snipped my post...interesting.

I quoted specifically what I was replying to. Is this really the only reply you can muster?

 

[Sherry]

You snipped my post...interesting.

I quoted specifically what I was replying to. Is this really the only reply you can muster?

Etiquette is that you quote the entire post, and then bold the parts that you only want to address. I think you're kidding yourself, but why would I worry about convincing you of that??

 

[The T]

You snipped my post...interesting.

I quoted specifically what I was replying to. Is this really the only reply you can muster?

Why didn't you answer the entire post? Why snip it? Afraid?

 

[The T]

the fact that their beloved savior, Ronald Reagan was the first and only President who was previously divorced.

Was Ronald Reagan the first president to get divorced

Newt is trying to break that record...many, many times over.

You think that Bill "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton and womanizer JFK are somehow superior because they stayed married?

This thread is a fail.

Personally I don't care about someone's personal moral failings.

JFK and Clinton were both ten times the President tham W Bush.

If Bush had been even half the President Clinton was I would have ordered a dozen blowjobs for him.

Interesting...since BOTH practiced infidelity.

You sure you want to anchor yourself to inmorailty?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Etiquette is that you quote the entire post

I was never one for other people's etiquette. Especially when I often quote and directly reply to several segments of people's posts. If that offends you, I suggest you enter the real world and realize how petty it is to call such a thing "etiquette."