If everyone was sticking to their agenda... he would have it tossed back at him from the "RIGHT". But, up until now, they are not... and hence, are being hypocritical. So, instead, it's coming from the LEFT. They are also being hypocritical because they are of the "mind your own personal matters" mantra ... clearly they aren't doing such here.
Except my personal agenda is "live of your terms and I'll live on mine. If you do not let me live on my terms, I will not let you live on yours." I will not pick a fight. But I also won't lie down in the ditch when one is picked with me.
I apply this across the board.
When Arnold Schwarzenegger had his marital problems, I didn't do my dance of glee because he had very publicly opposed Proposition 8 (as a Republican Governor) and hadn't held himself up as a pillar of moral values.
When Democratic virulently anti-gay congressman Carl Kruger was accused of taking bribes that were used to partially pay for his gay lover's water front mansion, I DID do my dance of glee.
So as you can see... you were quite wrong when you said I always say that the "Ds are right and the Rs are wrong." The people who mind their own business are right and the ones who don't will not get to keep their privacy.
And THAT is my "personal agenda."
You just pointed out in your response that you base your judgment (or lack thereof) of a politician on the political issue of most importance to you (prop 8, etc). As far as what those being judged actually did (or the crime, so to speak) to gain the scrutiny, it seems by the examples you provided, in many cases, that can be completely irrelevant to you. In that line of thinking, you base your opinion on their politics and how it impacted your issue. Maybe it's not "D" or "R" directly, but you base your judgment on their politics and how it impacted you're political agenda.
This was basically my point all along. In my opinion, that is hypocritical. It's basing moral judgments on issues outside of the context of the accusation (or crime, so to speak) in question.
To me, Newt did this too and what happened to him is the perfect example of karma being a bitch.
So, to you, I say... enjoy you're judging. Just hope karma doesn't come back around to bite you ( or more likely, the issues of importance to you or politicians supporting them) like it did to him...
You just pointed out in your response that you base your judgment (or lack thereof) of a politician on the political issue of most importance to you (prop 8, etc)
I'm SO sorry that I can't care more about your special issues and your little problems. Imagine the gaul I have that I don't put you at the center of my universe.
When people stop targeting me with petty bills, laws and special expeditions, I just might stop making their political destruction a priority.
...judging begets more judging, after all.
Well then how about you stop doing it and you take your whiney, finger-pointing self home?
You just pointed out in your response that you base your judgment (or lack thereof) of a politician on the political issue of most importance to you (prop 8, etc)
I'm SO sorry that I can't care more about your special issues and your little problems. Imagine the gaul I have that I don't put you at the center of my universe.
...judging begets more judging, after all.
Well then how about you stop doing it and you take your whiney, finger-pointing self home?
OK? Ok.
:twisted: :roll:
I just was hoping you'd be consistent, is all. You don't want others judging you, right?
I'm quite consistent. If anyone from any part of the political spectrum attacks me while holding themselves up as a moral pillar and I find out that they're a total hypocrite... I will go on the attack.
You don't want others judging you, right?
But they do it anyway, don't they?
And you apparently would rather I lay down in the ditch and took it than standing up for myself and fighting back.
I'm quite consistent. If anyone from any part of the political spectrum attacks me while holding themselves up as a moral pillar and I find out that they're a total hypocrite... I will go on the attack.
But, if they agree with you on one political issue (gay rights) AND hold themselves up as a moral pillar and you find out they're a total hypocrite... you won't attack. Hmmm. Consistent? I dunno.
But, if they agree with you on one political issue (gay rights) AND hold themselves up as a moral pillar and you find out they're a total hypocrite... you won't attack. Hmmm. Consistent? I dunno.
Who said that?
I was a big supporter of John Edwards until I found out what a letch he was. I also have been quite critical of Barney Frank.
i guess a man who has been divorced a few times and wanted an open marriage with his second wife jogs well with republican family values these days......
I'm not a fan of newt, but why are you so willing to believe?
willing to believe what????
yes or no, newt's history jives with republican family values....you know,. the ones that they try to shove down my throat every election cycle...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Newt is a hypocrite. And in my opinion, the majority of Republicans who support him are hypocrites too. Why? Well, these are the very same people who would tear down the opposition (a Democrat) who did the same thing or something similar in his/her personal life. In fact, Newt did just that.
That said, I find it humorous that some liberal leaning members in this very thread, and liberals commentators elsewhere, tear down Newt Gingrich for his stance on "infidelity", "open marriages", "sex", name it. These are the very same people who defended John Edwards, Bill Clinton and those who engaged in this sort of thing with a D next to their name. These individuals are also hypocrites. There are many of them who commented above my comment.
At the end of the day, this is why I can't stand the current political environment. This very thread is proof that there are kool-aid drinkers on both sides who are so blinded by the game, they don't see their own hypocrisy.
F'ing wake up! Some things are black and white. It can't be ok when the person who partakes in an act has a "D" or "R" next to their name but wrong when someone with a "R" or "D" next to their name partakes in the same act.
Your partisanship makes me physically ill.
give me a fucking break! i challenge you to find posts from any of us above your post that supported john edwards when word got out what he did to his wife.
i have also said on numerous occasions that what clinton did was disgusting. but what was more disgusting to me is how gingrich went after clinton for having an affair while he was doing the exact same fucking thing! i have also said repeatedly that kenneth starr wasted $47 million of your tax dollars investigating clinton, trying to find anythng at all to drag him down and destroy his presidency and all he came up with was clinton getting a bj in the oval office....they had nothing else. the whitewater investigation did not show what the republicans wanted it to show so they went for the infidelity story...they brought him up on charges and could not summon the votes to throw him out of office. they only were able to weaken him, and that to me was not worth wasting $47 million to make him look bad.
you are on here all the time complaining about government wasting tax payer money when the starr investigation was ultimately the most egregious waste of money in the last 30 years. they did not get him thrown out of office, but gingrich was tossed out of the speakership by his colleagues, so i guess that talks about his character as well...so before you start throwing around the "hypocrite" term i suggest you research the posts of the people that you are calling a hypocrite. deal???
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Newt is a hypocrite. And in my opinion, the majority of Republicans who support him are hypocrites too. Why? Well, these are the very same people who would tear down the opposition (a Democrat) who did the same thing or something similar in his/her personal life. In fact, Newt did just that.
That said, I find it humorous that some liberal leaning members in this very thread, and liberals commentators elsewhere, tear down Newt Gingrich for his stance on "infidelity", "open marriages", "sex", name it. These are the very same people who defended John Edwards, Bill Clinton and those who engaged in this sort of thing with a D next to their name. These individuals are also hypocrites. There are many of them who commented above my comment.
At the end of the day, this is why I can't stand the current political environment. This very thread is proof that there are kool-aid drinkers on both sides who are so blinded by the game, they don't see their own hypocrisy.
F'ing wake up! Some things are black and white. It can't be ok when the person who partakes in an act has a "D" or "R" next to their name but wrong when someone with a "R" or "D" next to their name partakes in the same act.
Your partisanship makes me physically ill.
give me a fucking break! i challenge you to find posts from any of us above your post that supported john edwards when word got out what he did to his wife.
i have also said on numerous occasions that what clinton did was disgusting. but what was more disgusting to me is how gingrich went after clinton for having an affair while he was doing the exact same fucking thing! i have also said repeatedly that kenneth starr wasted $47 million of your tax dollars investigating clinton, trying to find anythng at all to drag him down and destroy his presidency and all he came up with was clinton getting a bj in the oval office....they had nothing else. the whitewater investigation did not show what the republicans wanted it to show so they went for the infidelity story...they brought him up on charges and could not summon the votes to throw him out of office. they only were able to weaken him, and that to me was not worth wasting $47 million to make him look bad.
you are on here all the time complaining about government wasting tax payer money when the starr investigation was ultimately the most egregious waste of money in the last 30 years. they did not get him thrown out of office, but gingrich was tossed out of the speakership by his colleagues, so i guess that talks about his character as well...so before you start throwing around the "hypocrite" term i suggest you research the posts of the people that you are calling a hypocrite. deal???
i challenge you to write 1 post without using "I". try it, you're not that important.
Newt Gingrich ground the government to a halt. Twice. And he derailed the whole democratic process so he could impeach the president for getting head from an intern while screwing that creepy Stepford whore while his wife was in the hospital with cancer.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=91525
Discuss, disagree and debate politely. It's possible to disagree with people without being abusive, and it's a requirement here. This includes abusive Private Messages.
and viewtopic.php?f=13&t=67751
Discuss the topic, not the people discussing the topic. No personal comments. Look your comments over before hitting Submit and be sure you're debating THE TOPIC.
Comments
You just pointed out in your response that you base your judgment (or lack thereof) of a politician on the political issue of most importance to you (prop 8, etc). As far as what those being judged actually did (or the crime, so to speak) to gain the scrutiny, it seems by the examples you provided, in many cases, that can be completely irrelevant to you. In that line of thinking, you base your opinion on their politics and how it impacted your issue. Maybe it's not "D" or "R" directly, but you base your judgment on their politics and how it impacted you're political agenda.
This was basically my point all along. In my opinion, that is hypocritical. It's basing moral judgments on issues outside of the context of the accusation (or crime, so to speak) in question.
To me, Newt did this too and what happened to him is the perfect example of karma being a bitch.
So, to you, I say... enjoy you're judging. Just hope karma doesn't come back around to bite you ( or more likely, the issues of importance to you or politicians supporting them) like it did to him...
...judging begets more judging, after all.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I'm SO sorry that I can't care more about your special issues and your little problems. Imagine the gaul I have that I don't put you at the center of my universe.
When people stop targeting me with petty bills, laws and special expeditions, I just might stop making their political destruction a priority.
Well then how about you stop doing it and you take your whiney, finger-pointing self home?
OK? Ok.
:twisted:
I just was hoping you'd be consistent, is all. You don't want others judging you, right?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I'm quite consistent. If anyone from any part of the political spectrum attacks me while holding themselves up as a moral pillar and I find out that they're a total hypocrite... I will go on the attack.
But they do it anyway, don't they?
And you apparently would rather I lay down in the ditch and took it than standing up for myself and fighting back.
And no. I won't.
But, if they agree with you on one political issue (gay rights) AND hold themselves up as a moral pillar and you find out they're a total hypocrite... you won't attack. Hmmm. Consistent? I dunno.
They may judge you, and if they do you don't like it? Then you go out and judge them? That will work, I'm sure.
Anyway... I'm done here. Enjoy your judging.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Who said that?
I was a big supporter of John Edwards until I found out what a letch he was. I also have been quite critical of Barney Frank.
Please don't tell me what I will and won't do.
you have been for quite a while.
yes or no, newt's history jives with republican family values....you know,. the ones that they try to shove down my throat every election cycle...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
i have also said on numerous occasions that what clinton did was disgusting. but what was more disgusting to me is how gingrich went after clinton for having an affair while he was doing the exact same fucking thing! i have also said repeatedly that kenneth starr wasted $47 million of your tax dollars investigating clinton, trying to find anythng at all to drag him down and destroy his presidency and all he came up with was clinton getting a bj in the oval office....they had nothing else. the whitewater investigation did not show what the republicans wanted it to show so they went for the infidelity story...they brought him up on charges and could not summon the votes to throw him out of office. they only were able to weaken him, and that to me was not worth wasting $47 million to make him look bad.
you are on here all the time complaining about government wasting tax payer money when the starr investigation was ultimately the most egregious waste of money in the last 30 years. they did not get him thrown out of office, but gingrich was tossed out of the speakership by his colleagues, so i guess that talks about his character as well...so before you start throwing around the "hypocrite" term i suggest you research the posts of the people that you are calling a hypocrite. deal???
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
i challenge you to write 1 post without using "I". try it, you're not that important.
Well said
And I challenge you to respond to his comments instead of insulting him. Go on, I know you can do it.
I agree. I've seen better replies from you Commy... That was pretty low.
this isn't your fight.
Where?
Where?[/quote]
who are you exactly?
This isn't the place for a fight. It is a place for reasoned discussion.
If you want to fight, at least fight about the topic discussed. Derailing and baiting on a personal level is just lame.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
to be clear. to be clear i'm not really looking for a fight.
You have NO idea how f-ing ironically hilarious that post is, do you?
Not at all.
Discuss, disagree and debate politely. It's possible to disagree with people without being abusive, and it's a requirement here. This includes abusive Private Messages.
and
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=67751
Discuss the topic, not the people discussing the topic. No personal comments. Look your comments over before hitting Submit and be sure you're debating THE TOPIC.