This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
John 8:7: "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone"Matthew 5:28: "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."I'm not saying anything! : )
Clinton didn't *merely* lie about his affairs; he involved countless others in doing sp. For that mater, he didn't *merely* have affairs; he used the offices he held as a platform from which to engage in the predatory sexual pursuit of other women.
Papalinton frequently accuses me of "compartmentalization". Well, politics is one place where I truly have to plead guilty to the charge. I can't seem to find any useful correlation between a political figure's private sexual morality and his public service. Look at Carter; probably one of our most virtuous presidents ever, and yet one of the most inept. On the other hand, Clinton is arguably the best president we've had in my own lifetime (and I date back to Truman), yet was hardly a role model in his private life. I can't recall anyone ever accusing Nixon of any affairs, yet he was a disaster. Gerald Ford was pretty clean cut, and was a fairly decent president. FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy - all had affairs, and all were great presidents. George W. Bush did not - and was our Worst President Ever!See? No correlation.
The general allegation is not that he lied, but that he lied under oath. He committed perjury, thereby committing obstruction of justice as well.Clinton was guilty of worse things. This was like getting Al Capone on tax evasion.
Is this a question about Gingrich (affairs, but didn't lie about them)? Anyone who has an affair is a bastard. Anyone who lies about it is also a bastard, but only slightly worse. Anyone who lies about it under oath is also a bastard, but slightly worse yet. Of course, anyone who has an affair and serves their wife divorce papers in a hospital has a special circle of hell reserved just for them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't lying part of the definition of having an affair? Without lies, it would just be an "open marriage".
Well, to lie, to sleep around, to whatever...is to be human, and obviously you cannot legislate people and make them become good. Law is only meant as a tool of justice to defend personal rights.However perjury in a court of law, is a crime - and there are very good reasons for this to be the case. If the object of this question is to probe the idea that Gingrich and Clinton are essentially the same on some cosmic "goodness" morality scale...well, why don't you toss yourself in there too Victor, or me, or any person?I'm more concerned with is how a particular candidate views the use government's monopoly on force. Will it be constrained to protection and defend individual rights - or unconstrained in attempts to shape and engineer a 'better' humanity?
They're scum, obviously. It takes a special kind of person to break his marriage vows so spectacularly by having intercourse with other women. Sexual intimacy is the highest form of physical intimacy, and as such should be reserved for marriage, so as to maximally solidify the bond between husband and wife. Moreover, there are deep spiritual and existential dimensions to the act which greatly enhance its significance: It is that by which new human persons are called from nothingness into existence; in a sense, human beings become co-creators with God. Someone who cheats on his wife is too repugnant for words; he makes an unmitigated mockery of reality by desecrating several of the holiest things (the sex act, the marriage, and the family) on multiple levels through his infantile self-absorption. [Sore topic for me. Since my "father's" multitudinous affairs for the past ten years have ruined our family, I (unfortunately) speak from direct experience.]
Clayton: "Of course, anyone who has an affair and serves their wife divorce papers in a hospital has a special circle of hell reserved just for them."Is that intended as an "out there" hypothetical, or are you saying that Clinton did that?===B.Prokop: "... George W. Bush did not - and was our Worst President Ever!"Well, of course he was no conservative, and so he was off to a bad start from from day one, plus he had that pathetic need to play kissy-face with the "liberals", but he was hardly the worst president ever. Surely, that honor must go to Carter ... or, if we actually knew that the current interloper were legally president, he'd be the winner for ages to come.
adc: "I'm more concerned with is how a particular candidate views the use government's monopoly on force. Will it be constrained to protection and defend individual rights - or unconstrained in attempts to shape and engineer a 'better' humanity?"And every Democrat for decades, and most Repulicans (which we now call RINOs), are dangerous on that point.Nevertheless, it is Congress, not the President, that people ought to be most concerned about. The President, like the Supreme Court, can get away with only what Congress allows.
If you want to start reading up on Gingrich's treatment of his wives, you can certainly read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/aspects-of-gingrich-divorce-story-distorted/2011/11/17/gIQA8iY4YN_story.htmlI think it's pretty well documented that he has twice divorced and had affairs during both marriages. The sliminess is pretty well documented online.
guess that leaves Ron Paul...
Or Obama. He hasn't had any affairs.
James Carville on CNN today:We have watched GOP debates where audience members booed gay soldiers and cheered the prospect of someone dying without health insurance. We've seen a candidate who wasn't penalized in the least for not knowing that China has had nuclear weapons since 1964 but had to drop out because of a consensual sexual relationship. We have seen a member of the House Intelligence Committee who apparently didn't realize that we haven't had an embassy in Iran for the last 30 years, candidates who don't believe in evolution, and a candidate that didn't even know the voting age in the United States. Maybe Bush, Daniels, Christie, Barbour and Thune figured out ahead of time what Fairleigh Dickinson University uncovered just recently: that people who watch Fox News are actually more ignorant than people who watch no news at all. Could you imagine what they would have found had they studied people listening to talk radio?Perhaps the Republicans are getting exactly the kind of candidates that best match the intellectual composition of the majority of the people in their party. Looks like their chance at the presidency is going, going, gone.
If the issue isn't lying per se but lying under oath, then the technical distinction between sexual relations per some official legal definition and sexual relations as might be understood common-sensically might actually save him from a charge of perjury, even though, in ordinary life (and within marriages particularly) it is rightly scorned.
Clayton: "I think it's pretty well documented that he has twice divorced and had affairs during both marriages. The sliminess is pretty well documented online."Certainly.However:1) Aren't you an atheist? Whence this moral indignation?2) You assigned him to a special circle of Hell (what!?), after repeating the slimmy on-line urban legend that he "served his wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer treatment", or surgery, or somesuch.
"Or Obama. He hasn't had any affairs."Except for the cocaine-fueled (or was it crack?) gay one. ;)
should be.... "On Victor Reppert's lies, and those in his gang"
TrivialWhat about BushCo lying about WMDS (or at least misrepresenting the dangers/reality). Libby lying under oath for Cheney. All sorts of neo-cons--the NYT_-- using false pretenses to support an attack on Iraq, etc.
Post a Comment