Haggard admits ‘sexual immorality,’ apologizes

hippiemom

Purple Hawk wrote:

serioulsy? he setteled...so sexual harassment is ok if you have enough money to and fbi files to subdue those who would dare stand up against you?

any true feminist would look upon this guy with disdain, and if clinton was a Republican, you would think he was worse than W, Reagan, and Hitler all rolled into one. On top of it all, if Clinton was a Republican, Broderick would be a household name, especially on this site.

serioulsy, the whole episode was quite telling, and embarrasing.

Hey, I don't like the guy either. I voted for him in '92, saw the error of my ways by '96. I was just correcting a factual error.

Purple Hawk

hippiemom wrote:

Hey, I don't like the guy either. I voted for him in '92, saw the error of my ways by '96. I was just correcting a factual error.

yeah, that's EXACTLY what you were doing

Dustin51

QuarterToTen wrote:

it never ceases to amaze me when these highly moral individuals
tearfully confess to such infidelities.

the fact that he apparently lead a double life decieving his family and
his followers for years is inexcusable.

preaching against such so called sins and yet living the way he did is quite dark and repulsive to me.

hey if you want to be gay and use drugs, thats your choice,
just don't tell me how to live.

Well Said

soulsinging

fanch75 wrote:

THANK YOU. I was sitting here reading the posts before yours in disbelief!

I'm not really sure why folks feel the need to defend the gay part of it when the undisputed and admitted fact was that he was doing all of this while being a father and husband. Would it be "oppressing his normal behavior" if he was doing this with another woman? I'd think not.

and if he was leading a crusade to put scarlet letters on women who cheated while he had affaris on his wife, id be equally outraged. the point is not that his behavior is bad. the point is that he condemns and encourages hatred towards people who are no different than him.

it is the same as rush limbaugh advocating throwing drug addicts in jail forever... unless, of course, they're rush limbaugh, in which case it's just a tragic problem deserving mercy and treatment. all those black guys in the ghetto though... they CHOSE to become addicts and they're all just fucking criminals right?

soulsinging

Purple Hawk wrote:

the dumbest thing i've heard since people who claim that Clinton was impeached b/c he lied about getting a blow job...when in reality, he lied about past sexual conduct in a sexual harasment trial. granted, sexual harassment is overrated. it's okay though if you're a democrat.

see, you are so quick to throw these labels around... like "it's ok if you're a democrat." yet you still find excuses to rationalize why it was ok for bush to lie about WMD's in iraq. so... i turn it around. if bush were a dem, you'd think he was worse than hitler or stalin combined for meddling in affairs that aren't ours and lying to get us to war. it's okay though if you're a republican.

funny how that works.

clinton settled his sexual harassment claims. if the woman who was settled with found it satisfactory, it is not my business. who clinton fucked is also not my business if his wife has no problem with it. it is between them. now, if clinton had been the impetus for a national drive to promote abstinence and fidelity, then id be pissed. but he wasnt. he fucked around. not my problem. apparently, it wasnt such a problem for whoever he harassed either cos she was willing to drop the charges for settlement. if whatever he did was so reprehensible and awful, she'd had wanted him publicly nailed to the wall. but she didnt.

bottom line is, this guy is a piece of shit and i hope he got gonorrhea from his activities.

Purple Hawk

soulsinging wrote:

see, you are so quick to throw these labels around... like "it's ok if you're a democrat." yet you still find excuses to rationalize why it was ok for bush to lie about WMD's in iraq.

let's stop it right there bright eyes...

can you provide ANY evidence that W lied? any evidence that his evidence was different from russia's, france's, the uk, etc?

Purple Hawk

soulsinging wrote:

see, you are so quick to throw these labels around... like "it's ok if you're a democrat." yet you still find excuses to rationalize why it was ok for bush to lie about WMD's in iraq. so... i turn it around. if bush were a dem, you'd think he was worse than hitler or stalin combined for meddling in affairs that aren't ours and lying to get us to war. it's okay though if you're a republican.

funny how that works.

clinton settled his sexual harassment claims. if the woman who was settled with found it satisfactory, it is not my business. who clinton fucked is also not my business if his wife has no problem with it. it is between them. now, if clinton had been the impetus for a national drive to promote abstinence and fidelity, then id be pissed. but he wasnt. he fucked around. not my problem. apparently, it wasnt such a problem for whoever he harassed either cos she was willing to drop the charges for settlement. if whatever he did was so reprehensible and awful, she'd had wanted him publicly nailed to the wall. but she didnt.

bottom line is, this guy is a piece of shit and i hope he got gonorrhea from his activities.

funny, sexual harassment is your business if bob packwood or clarance thomas is involved. truth is, you don't give a damned about women's rights. nor does NOW, or whatever they're calling themselves these days.

ItsEvolutionBaby74

Purple Hawk wrote:

the dumbest thing i've heard since people who claim that Clinton was impeached b/c he lied about getting a blow job...when in reality, he lied about past sexual conduct in a sexual harasment trial. granted, sexual harassment is overrated. it's okay though if you're a democrat.

well, do you really think i care what clinton did with monica and his dildo? for gods sake im a centrist, im just glad that a man with his politics was elected

soulsinging

Purple Hawk wrote:

funny, sexual harassment is your business if bob packwood or clarance thomas is involved. truth is, you don't give a damned about women's rights. nor does NOW, or whatever they're calling themselves these days.

i didnt give a damn about bob packwood or clarence thomas either. where did i mention either of them and why do you insist on amking these blanket assumptions that you know my every view based solely on the fact that i think dubya is a dunce? i DID give a damn about newt gingrich. why? cos he was leading the crucifixion of clinton for being a dirty cheater. but i dont believe in "causes." i believe in common sense. my common sense is that who people feel like marrying or fucking is their business, not mine. and if you go around telling people that they're not allowed to fuck certain people becos it's wrong, and it turns out you've been doing the same thing all along, you're a fucking schmuck and i hope your dick rots off. that goes to newt and this piece of shit. clinton, thomas, packwood... they paid their debt to the justice system and their accusers. beyond that, their behavior is none of my godamn business. it's the hypocrisy i loathe, not the fact that they fucked up. humans make mistakes. but to condemn others for mistakes you make yourself is fucking disgusting.

Purple Hawk

ItsEvolutionBaby74 wrote:

well, do you really think i care what clinton did with monica and his dildo? for gods sake im a centrist, im just glad that a man with his politics was elected

how about what he did with paula jones? again, sexual harassment isn't a big deal to you?

BrinkofForever

Purple Hawk wrote:

let's stop it right there bright eyes...

can you provide ANY evidence that W lied? any evidence that his evidence was different from russia's, france's, the uk, etc?

When you cherrypick the intel, throw out any relevant documentation that hinders your case for war, and then out someone's CIA wife to spite them... that, to me anyway, is lying.

meme

soulsinging wrote:

and if he was leading a crusade to put scarlet letters on women who cheated while he had affaris on his wife, id be equally outraged. the point is not that his behavior is bad. the point is that he condemns and encourages hatred towards people who are no different than him.

it is the same as rush limbaugh advocating throwing drug addicts in jail forever... unless, of course, they're rush limbaugh, in which case it's just a tragic problem deserving mercy and treatment. all those black guys in the ghetto though... they CHOSE to become addicts and they're all just fucking criminals right?

Exactly.
Also, his choice of words "sexual immorality" suggests to me that actually lying and cheating on his wife was the least of his concerns.
Cause you know, sinning against god and "nature" is far worse than hurting another person :rolleyes:

inmytree

this thread is a classic example of how the right keeps power....it starts out as a thread discussing the hypocracy of one of the Rights big wigs, someone close to bushy and white house....a gay, meth-using, lying ass...and turns into a Clinton and WMD discussion...

nice work...

back to topic: I think is amusing when the self-righteous, "I'm better that you" types, fall flat on there faces...with that said, I feel sorry for his family...

I've always suspected that those who fight the hardest against something tend to have that very something within them, in this case, the man was gay, he hated that fact, and did everything he could to fight it, rather that accept it...

soulsinging

inmytree wrote:

I've always suspected that those who fight the hardest against something tend to have that very something within them, in this case, the man was gay, he hated that fact, and did everything he could to fight it, rather that accept it...

i think basically these people are cowards. they're afraid to stand up for who they are when they know it will have some blowback in their community. honestly, id be afraid to come out if i lived in alabama or texas too. so they go over the top to assert their "manliness" and hide their secret doubts. most of these people probably aren't gay, but the one day they have a thought about it it freaks them out and suddenly it's all those gay people wanting to be accepted for it who are at fault for putting that idea in their minds. so they fight against them, as revenge and out of jealousy that those folks can publicly admit to things they're afraid to admit even to themselves.

whitepants

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

That's exactly what went through my head when I read it. Dark and repulsive? I think him thinking it's dark and repulsive is in fact, dark and repulsive.

He has to be so filled with self loathing and hate to say that being homosexual is dark and repulsive.

He's a said and pathetic man and gays should just ignore his sick ass.

know1

soulsinging wrote:

and if he was leading a crusade to put scarlet letters on women who cheated while he had affaris on his wife, id be equally outraged. the point is not that his behavior is bad. the point is that he condemns and encourages hatred towards people who are no different than him.

He encourages hatred? Can you document that?

soulsinging

know1 wrote:

He encourages hatred? Can you document that?

he encourages a bigoted fear and disgust towards gay people, which leads to acts of hate against those gay people. case in point: matthew shepard (i think that was his name).

martin luther king wrote in "letter from a birmingham jail" that those who tacitly accept injustice encourage its perpetuation. this guy more than tacitly accepted, he worked hard to make it clear that gay people should be ashamed of themselves (even his "apology" carries this message) and should be publicly condemned for their behavior. this is one step removed from people who act upon such messages in a violent way to "teach the gays a lesson," and if their fellows condemned their acts of violence instead of spouting rhetoric that reinforces their hatred by carrying a message that such people deserve condemnation and repression, these people would be restrained the same way the KKK has been.

im not sure what kind of documentation you're looking for. you're not stupid. maybe this guy didn't kill anyone, but his message clearly lends strength and comfort to those inclined to try to rationalize violence of this sort. to me, that's encouraging hate.

Hope&Anger

Purple Hawk wrote:

how about what he did with paula jones? again, sexual harassment isn't a big deal to you?

Hate to jump in here, but actually, Paula Jones' claim was thrown out of court by the judge. Her lawsuit got dismissed on summary judgment. On summary judgment, the judge assumed everything that Jones said was true -- that she went to his room, he dropped his pants and asked for a blow job, she refused, and she left.

That doesn't mean that she actually PROVED it to a jury or anything. Just for purposes of the motion, the judge ASSUMES it's true.

Then, the judge asks herself "would she win if she went to a jury? Is this actually sexual harassment?" And the answer to that question was no. And the reason that this WASN'T sexual harassment was that it didn't happen over and over again. (Yep -- shocking, I know.)

Clinton settled the case because she was going to appeal -- even though most experts agreed that Jones was going to lose, but she had lots of high-priced lawyers funding her case.

Clinton's a pig -- no doubt. But are we honestly arguing that it was a worthwhile use of this country's resources to impeach him and try him for lying in a deposition in a private lawsuit that should never have gone forward in the first place?

puremagic

miller8966 wrote:

God hopefully will save his soul.

Wait minute people practice what you preach or don't preach. Either God hates homosexuality or God doesn't. Either God condemns it as a sin or it is not a sin. Stop making excuses because of a person's job or political affiliation or because he chose to get married and lie before God.

know1

soulsinging wrote:

he encourages a bigoted fear and disgust towards gay people, which leads to acts of hate against those gay people. case in point: matthew shepard (i think that was his name).

martin luther king wrote in "letter from a birmingham jail" that those who tacitly accept injustice encourage its perpetuation. this guy more than tacitly accepted, he worked hard to make it clear that gay people should be ashamed of themselves (even his "apology" carries this message) and should be publicly condemned for their behavior. this is one step removed from people who act upon such messages in a violent way to "teach the gays a lesson," and if their fellows condemned their acts of violence instead of spouting rhetoric that reinforces their hatred by carrying a message that such people deserve condemnation and repression, these people would be restrained the same way the KKK has been.

im not sure what kind of documentation you're looking for. you're not stupid. maybe this guy didn't kill anyone, but his message clearly lends strength and comfort to those inclined to try to rationalize violence of this sort. to me, that's encouraging hate.

You're reaching there by a long stretch. There's a big difference between saying an act is sinful and actually telling people to hate or hurt others. Heck, by the church's standards we're ALL sinners, and our sins aren't worse than that of homosexuality, but would you say that the church preaches hatred against those who are jealous?