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

[Ravi]

< 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?

Yeah, thanks for the wall of text defending Newt.

That he can't live up to a very basic contract because he has no self control makes him a bad risk. Not even mentioning that he lied to congress.

 

[L.K.Eder]

"weird attitudes about sexuality" segues into "support for santorum"

 

[JoeB131]

< 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?

No, I think you pretty much covered it in your OP.

Paula JOnes wasn't fired from the DMV. She was just retaliated against on the job and eventually quit. And it is hard to say if she was retaliated against for whether she was an awful employee or because she refused to blow Clinton. Not that it matters, the Sexual Harrassment laws are so complex that most employers fire the accused without a hearing to protect themselves.

That doesn't excuse the fact Clinton turned a petty lawsuit into a constitutional crisis that tarnished an otherwise successful presidency.

Newt ended his first marriage after 18 years, and then a second one after 18 years. The fact is people change in 18 years. Sometimes they change in teh same direction, sometimes they go off in different directions and people are no longer compatable.

More to the point, Clinton, I think, was a different issue. I think he had a real impulse control problem. After the Gennifer Flowers thing, he should have been extremely cautious. He was the oppossite.

Now, you give a whole list of other presidents, but they were from a pre-feminist time when wives of important men were expected to tolerate mistresses as long as they were not humiliated publically. It was a very different time.

I think we also have this idea that these important men with drives and ambitions beyond what most of us have are expected to have perfect family lives that none of us have.

 

[California Girl]

< 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?

Yeah, thanks for the wall of text defending Newt.

That he can't live up to a very basic contract because he has no self control makes him a bad risk. Not even mentioning that he lied to congress.

Yea, I have to say, for me... it's the ethics shit that has made him absolutely impossible for me to support him.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Well, if that's what you want to hang your hat on.

Not feeling bad for Marianne. She knew what she was marrying when she married him.

I feel a lot worse for AmPad Workers who lost their jobs because Romney wanted another Mansion.

I guess I consider Greed a worse sin than Lust. But that's just me.

 

[Sunni Man]

The bottom line is that it's about "Character".

A man with good character will be the same man 24/7/365

I have known guys who were one way at home and around the wife and kids.

But were a totally different person away from the family or at work.

Just never felt that I could really trust them a 100%

 

[Claudette]

Newts personal life doesn't bother me at all. No ones personal life bothers me at all. As long as they aren't a serial rapist and ax murder or thief I could care less.

Clinton could have blown every intern in DC and I wouldn't have cared. What I did care about is that he, as a sitting US Prez, lied to a grand jury. Thats what he was impeached for and rightly so.

None of the folks running DC are perfect. None of them. I'm sure none of the GOP candidates are perfect either.

Anyone looking for Mr or Mrs Perfection is going to be sadly disappointed.

Could Newt run the country. Yep. I think he can and much better than the current dimwit in chief.

 

[uscitizen]

The double standard allows democrats to ignore what they call "family values" because the democrat party does not promote or endorse morality. It's a great advantage for a democrat candidate to be immune to allegations of improper conduct while accusing republicans.

You got halfway there. The republicans are the self proclaimed party of personal responsibility, family values and marriage between one woman and one man.


This is why I like to pick on them for their failings in those areas.

 

[Seawytch]

We've had prominent leaders as cheaters going back to Thomas Jefferson. It did not effect their ability to perform their jobs or lead the country.

It's not the cheating...it's the hypocrisy.

 

[JoeB131]

The bottom line is that it's about "Character".

A man with good character will be the same man 24/7/365

I have known guys who were one way at home and around the wife and kids.

But were a totally different person away from the family or at work.

Just never felt that I could really trust them a 100%

Are you saying where you are doesn't effect you?

Frankly, I have to be a different person at work than I am at home, because at work, there are a whole book of rules that I have to follow, most of them a little silly. At home, I can relax.

 

[JoeB131]

We've had prominent leaders as cheaters going back to Thomas Jefferson. It did not effect their ability to perform their jobs or lead the country.

It's not the cheating...it's the hypocrisy.

You keep saying that, but it's not about hypocrisy.

Newt didn't impeach CLinton for being a horndog. Everyone knew Clinton was a horndog, and taking a look at Hillary, you can kind of understand why. Imagine waking up next to that every morning, without any makeup.

He was impeached because he decided to put the whole prestige of his office on defeating some little clerk who didn't like his crude behavior. And when he wasn't getting his way, because we are a country of laws, he abused his power and broke the law.

Bill Clinton ran on the "I believe Anita Hill" platform in 1992. If anyone was a hypocrite on the subject at hand, he was.

 

[Gagafritz]

Is there a point where you personal life is personal? If you blab everything about your life, then you are TMI . If you dont' tell everyone you have hemorrhoids, then you are being secretive. You can't win.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

You can always tell an ignoramus ideological leftist windbag because they think that the Civil War was about slavery.

If it was about slavery then why didnt Lincoln ban slavery in ALL states instead of just the states in rebellion?

Why did he wait till half way through the civil war to do it?

Why did Grant go through the entire war with two personal black slaves tending to him the whole time?

If it was about slavery then why did Lincoln say that if he could preserve the union at the cost of guaranteeing the right to own slaves he would do it?

No doubt for some people in the south, slave owners, the war was mostly about the right to keep and own slaves. But for the vast majority who never owned a slave and knew that they would never own a slave the war was about keeping the Union armies from coming in and destroying their home towns. For some it was about states rights.

But the igniting cause was none of that; it was the simple fact that the South was forced to face the fact that they were such a small minority in the Union that Lincoln could get elected President without carrying even one single state in the South. At that point the deep South decided to leave the Union. The other half left when Lincoln ordered the bordering states to call up troops to invade their neighboring Southern states.

THAT is what caused the Civl War and THAT is what the Civil War was about.

Only ideological asshats think it was about slavery.

 

[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.

For some I guess, but for me and most people I knew, the sex stuff just made us feel contempt for the man. In Newts case, if he were STILL CARRYING ON THAT WAY we would feel contempt for him too, but Newt has stopped living his life like a horndog trying to rut everything that moves the way Clinton continued to do while in office.

But none of that was impeachable. The rapes, if proven, would have been impeachable, but the GOP didnt pursue those in the impeachment. The impeachment was about PERJURY by a sitting President who repeatedly LIED to the public about not having sex with Lewinski and other philandering idiocies he engaged in.

Show me where Newt has put his hand on the Bible, sworn to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in a court of law before a judge and then LIED HIS ASS OFF ABOUT IT and I will agree that the two cases are exactly the same.

Till then, the whole thing is just more of the bullshit attacks to destroy yet another person who is in Mitt Romnuts way and nothing more than that. And you can bet his cronies who want to do to the US what Bain did to so many of the companies they bought out (canabilization) are going to keep telling lies, smearing opposition and destroying the GOP one peice at a time because they dont give a shit about anything if it is in the way of their planned fire sale of US interests to the highes bidders one piece of this nation at a time.

 

[Seawytch]

We've had prominent leaders as cheaters going back to Thomas Jefferson. It did not effect their ability to perform their jobs or lead the country.

It's not the cheating...it's the hypocrisy.

You keep saying that, but it's not about hypocrisy.

Newt didn't impeach CLinton for being a horndog. Everyone knew Clinton was a horndog, and taking a look at Hillary, you can kind of understand why. Imagine waking up next to that every morning, without any makeup.

He was impeached because he decided to put the whole prestige of his office on defeating some little clerk who didn't like his crude behavior. And when he wasn't getting his way, because we are a country of laws, he abused his power and broke the law.

Bill Clinton ran on the "I believe Anita Hill" platform in 1992. If anyone was a hypocrite on the subject at hand, he was.

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?

 

[DaGoose]

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.

 

[Katzndogz]

Clinton wasn't impeached for sex, but for lying. He was disbarred for lying. The bar for democrats is pretty low. What they have to overcome is that even though Bill Clinton was a world class wife cheater, and a liar, he was still a fairly effective president. His personal difficulties of keeping his privates in his pants didn't make him a bad president. There is the democrat quandry.

 

[High_Gravity]

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.

And Clinton had a string of women going all the way back to Paula Jones, when he was governor and then a long relationship with Gennifer Flowers and others and all before he was president, I think. The public knew of these women and so did Hillary, and Bill Clinton still became president, and continued with his follies until he was impeached.

I don't feel that any of his infideliities made him a lesser president. In fact, I think they helped. He was a good looking man with power and lust for young beautiful women, and it all worked well for him, until it didn't.

Newt is a changed man and I don't believe he would ever be a serial womanizer. He has been married since 2000 to Calista, and had a relationship with her for 6 years prior. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. But Newt knew this would come up, before he tossed his hat in the ring, and I am sure he will be a better man regardless of how it ends.

I don't think Newt's sex life is relevant, and I don't care about Bill Clinton's blow job either.

 

[DaGoose]

Clinton wasn't impeached for sex, but for lying. He was disbarred for lying. The bar for democrats is pretty low. What they have to overcome is that even though Bill Clinton was a world class wife cheater, and a liar, he was still a fairly effective president. His personal difficulties of keeping his privates in his pants didn't make him a bad president. There is the democrat quandry.

Say what you want but the only reason he was even put into the position for lying is that the puritanical neo-cons were chasing down sex rumors (and spending millions of taxpayer dollars in the process). And Newt was one of them leading the charge.

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

 

[Baruch Menachem]

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. 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.


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.