Wow!

cincybearcat

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Right bill just took advantage of an employee, that issooooo much nicer. :?

She was an adult and a very willing participant. Nobody was "taken advantage of" in that situation.

I really wish people would stop assuming that any sexually active woman is either a victim or a slut.

I'm not defending Newt by any means, but Bill Clinton did his deed with an intern. Even if she was a willing participant, most companies would have fired that employee...but the government has different standards.

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Aside from my job and sexual orientation (that you bring up more than I do), you know nothing about me or which politicians I support. You are wrong about the above statement.

Umm... you brought it up AGAIN, chief. I did not, nor would I. I only comment on it after you first bring it up, which is in every single thread, to point out how ridiculous it is. It's trolling behavior, so I point it out for that.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

What makes me vomit is someone making assumptions about me and whom I support based on a few posts I made in the political forum on the Pearl Jam fan club website and then has the nerve to call me "Dum."

(and spells "dumb" wrong, too.)

First, the "dum-dum-dumb" is a take off of a South Park episode, genius.

Second, you've made it pretty apparent that you're an outspoken "D" in thread after thread. You knock libertarians, you knock Republicans and you support Democrats. It's not rocket science.

inlet13

blueandwhite wrote:

I see it like this; Newt's personal life has nothing to do with his ability to do his job. On the other hand, when he (or anybody else) starts pointing the finger and condemning others for the same behaviour, I take some issue with that. It's like an anti-gun lobbyist registering and owning a dozen guns while complaining that gun ownership is fundamentally wrong. It's hard to hold a position and come across as being credible when your actions contradict your words.

Gingrich simply rubs me the wrong way a bit more because he condemns others for their piss-poor behaviour while he's doing the same thing. The fact he's a Republican doesn't really come into the picture.

First, many Republicans are undoubtedly being hypocritical here if they are supporting Newt and chastised any Ds for similar behavior.

Second, what I'm also trying to say is that many Democrats are being hypocrites too because they are fine with this sort of thing when it's their guy. They say "it has nothing to do with his ability to govern" and whatnot. Ok... fair enough. But, then when it's a guy with an "R" next to his name, they freak out and act morally superior.... all of the sudden it appears like it does have something to do with his ability to govern.

Both sides do it. It's done in this very thread. It's gross.

So... My point is if you don't want to judge people based on their personal life, you shouldn't judge them on their personal life (period). Doesn't matter if they have a D or R. Further, if you are ok with people being judged on their personal behavior (be it open marriages, homosexuality, infidelity, etc.) you can't pick and choose when it's ok and when it's not based on political affiliation.

Prince Of Dorkness

inlet13 wrote:

Umm... you brought it up AGAIN, chief. I did not, nor would I. I only comment on it after you first bring it up, which is in every single thread, to point out how ridiculous it is. It's trolling behavior, so I point it out for that.

I Didn't mention my own in that other thread, you did that...I Just made a parallel between GOProud and the anti-war/pro-choice splinter factions in the republican party. You brought me into it personally. And you point it out cuz yer kinda whiny.

Second, you've made it pretty apparent that you're an outspoken "D" in thread after thread. You knock libertarians, you knock Republicans and you support Democrats. It's not rocket science.

Oh I don't deny being a progressive, that's for sure. But you said that to me, "Ds are always right and Rs are always wrong." and that's it's not accurate. Not even close.

Please stop making assumptions about what I "always" do based on a few posts.

Prince Of Dorkness

inlet13 wrote:

So... My point is if you don't want to judge people based on their personal life, you shouldn't judge them on their personal life (period).

I think you're wrong.

I think that if you attack someone else for their personal life, yours is now fair game.

If someone minds their own business, I'll allow them their privacy. If someone like Newt Gingrich (like he has) attacks my family and tries to pass laws to hurt us, I am within my right to talk about how he married his mistress...twice. And how his new wife is a creepy Stepford whore blowup sex doll.

Maybe you think "two wrongs don't make a right."

I say "a wrong and a right makes me a doormat and I'm not willing to be one any longer."

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

So... My point is if you don't want to judge people based on their personal life, you shouldn't judge them on their personal life (period).

I think you're wrong.

I think that if you attack someone else for their personal life, yours is now fair game.

If someone minds their own business, I'll allow them their privacy. If someone like Newt Gingrich (like he has) attacks my family and tries to pass laws to hurt us, I am within my right to talk about how he married his mistress...twice. And how his new wife is a creepy Stepford whore blowup sex doll.

Maybe you think "two wrongs don't make a right."

I say "a wrong and a right makes me a doormat and I'm not willing to be one any longer."

You're in your right to feel however you want. And I'm in my right to read what you write and say what you're writing makes you sound like a hypocrite. All I'm trying to say is there's an inconsistency here (not picking on you, but on all the Ds looking down upon this Newt marriage thing... and all the Rs supporting it)... and it has to do with partisan supporters (not really with the crap politicians on both sides) and their sheep-like tendencies.

My thought is: If you don't want people to judge you, don't judge them (this was the old Dem point of view on matters like this). If you are ok with judging others, be consistent on your morals (what's right and wrong) and be prepared to have them tossed back on you (this was the old Republican point of view). Choose one side and stick with it. Otherwise, you're being a hypocrite. With this current issue, both the Dems and the Republicans are hypocrites.

This is not just about politicians and their lives. It's about freedom to live how we want with no judgment... OR... to say judgment is permitted and it should be across the board and fair. We can't have it both ways.

Prince Of Dorkness

inlet13 wrote:

My thought is: If you don't want people to judge you, don't judge them (this was the old Dem point of view on matters like this). If you are ok with judging others, be consistent on your morals (what's right and wrong) and be prepared to have them tossed back on you (this was the old Republican point of view). Choose one side and stick with it. Otherwise, you're being a hypocrite. With this current issue, both the Dems and the Republicans are hypocrites.

Well then by your argument, Gingrich should be ready to have it tossed back at him.

I for one am sick and tired of being the one "in the right" while I lay down in the road and get run over.

Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. Come for me, and I'll fight you back. I'm sorry if you think that fighting my enemies makes me a "hypocrite." I think it makes me a survivor.

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

My thought is: If you don't want people to judge you, don't judge them (this was the old Dem point of view on matters like this). If you are ok with judging others, be consistent on your morals (what's right and wrong) and be prepared to have them tossed back on you (this was the old Republican point of view). Choose one side and stick with it. Otherwise, you're being a hypocrite. With this current issue, both the Dems and the Republicans are hypocrites.

Well then by your argument, Gingrich should be ready to have it tossed back at him.

I for one am sick and tired of being the one "in the right" while I lay down in the road and get run over.

Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. Come for me, and I'll fight you back. I'm sorry if you think that fighting my enemies makes me a "hypocrite." I think it makes me a survivor.

My point again is...

Gingrich should be prepared to have it tossed back at him. But, my point isn't about him... it's who should be doing it. 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.

P.S. Gingrich is a scum bag. I'm just pointing out there's an agenda to these attacks on his character by the left and lack of attack on his character by the right. Those engaged in the forementioned, in my humble opinion, are also scum bags.

Prince Of Dorkness

inlet13 wrote:

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."

satansbed

WOW!

the republicans are really stupid

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

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...

...judging begets more judging, after all.

Prince Of Dorkness

inlet13 wrote:

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?

OK? Ok.

:twisted: :roll:

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

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?

Prince Of Dorkness

inlet13 wrote:

I just was hoping you'd be consistent, is all.

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.

And no. I won't.

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

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.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

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.

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.

Prince Of Dorkness

inlet13 wrote:

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.

Please don't tell me what I will and won't do.

Anyway... I'm done here.

you have been for quite a while.

gimmesometruth27

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

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...

gimmesometruth27

inlet13 wrote:

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???

Commy

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

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.

peacefrompaul

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

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.

Well said