Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

The Up and Down (left or right?) of Morality.Follow

#1 Aug 19 2013 at 8:25 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
I read most a bit of the groping thread. It wasn't as tactile as i would have liked.

The term 'moral' highground came up more than once though. Are the bounds of morality different for democrats and republicans?

What are your moral highs and moral lows?

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#2 Aug 19 2013 at 8:31 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Elinda wrote:
Are the bounds of morality different for democrats and republicans?
To a democrat, anything a republican does is morally detestable. To a republican, anything a democrat does is morally detestable.

As for myself, my and mine's safety and well being comes first so there isn't really much I wouldn't do to assure it. "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six" comes to mind.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Aug 19 2013 at 8:52 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Are the bounds of morality different for democrats and republicans?
To a democrat, anything a republican does is morally detestable. To a republican, anything a democrat does is morally detestable.

Really? Smiley: clown

gbaji's claim was that democrats are less likely to throw someone out of office for moral indiscretions - whether it be texting hard-on pics or having an affair or ...whatever.

First off, I understand it's a gbaji claim, and therefor not necessarily of this reality. Still, could it be that 'morality' is defined slightly differently for the two parties?

In fact it probably is. It must be part of what makes the two party platforms diverge.

How much does religion play into it?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#4 Aug 19 2013 at 9:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
Are the bounds of morality different for democrats and republicans?

I get the impression that it's less "different boundaries" and more how the ideologies project those boundaries into public policy and political debate. I may personally not want a partner to have an abortion but I recognize that the option should be available for those who make that decision. I may feel infidelity is wrong, but I don't see it, in of itself, as an important facet in governing. I think most people recognize that murder is wrong, but differ on an appropriate punishment (capital vs non-capital).

Acknowledging that there are branches of the Republican party with a "who cares?" attitude, the party as a whole has allied itself with factions who care very much about projecting their boundaries into public policy and making their personal bounds into law. There's much less of that in the Democratic party.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Aug 19 2013 at 10:04 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
For some people it is "morally detestable" to have premarital sex. For these same people, it is perfectly "ok" to completely ***** the rest of humanity to make a dollar. They're not Republicans or Democrats, they're ******* retards.

(They're mostly Republicans. Mostly.)
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#6 Aug 19 2013 at 11:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
For me it comes down to integrity and basic values. A politician who lies about an affair or criminal activity is going to lie about other things. No politician is going to vote or behave exactly how I want or would act in a given scenario. But I try to support the ones who I feel will act according to my particular set of values and the topic I believe in, in order of importance to me.

Politicians, to be effective, have to make compromises. I recognize that in order to get a bill passed that I believe in, a politician may have to vote contrary to my beliefs on a different bill, and it's my responsability to pick a candidate that I believe will act in my best interests as I see them more often than not, and will act more effectivly than those running against that candidate.

For me, Infrastructure, economics, military / intel, science and space funding, education are the most important issues in that order, followed by everything else. I find abortion distasteful, and consider it a form of murder, but I would also consider supporting a candidate that was pro abortion if they were also very strongly supportive of transportation infrastructure building for example. I'd also have quite a bit of trouble supporting a candidate who shares my beliefs and values, but consistantly votes to implement policies that cannibalize the middle class economics in favor of providing services for an increasing lower class population.

I would actually have more respect for a candidate confronted with a sex scandal who responded with "Yup, I did it, it was great, and by the way, you mom says hi" than one who denied everything, swept it under the carpet and is later proven to be a liar. Richard nixon lied under oath and did the right thing by resigning. Bill Clinton lied under oath and should have been tossed out of office.

I dunno. it's a murky situational area. I don't think one party or the other tends to have more scandals overall, though I do think that the more moderate conservitive republicans (not the crazy ones) are quicker to implement sanctions than some of the democrats tend to be, but that could just be observational bias.

Either way I still think Nancy Pelosi is a ******* insane menace to the population and Harry Ried is a jerk.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#7 Aug 19 2013 at 4:05 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Jophiel wrote:
. I may personally not want a partner to have an abortion but I recognize that the option should be available for those who make that decision. I may feel infidelity is wrong, but I don't see it, in of itself, as an important facet in governing. I think most people recognize that murder is wrong, but differ on an appropriate punishment (capital vs non-capital).


Exactly this. The main difference between the two parties is that Democrats are less likely to push for laws that support their moral beliefs. That doesn't say that Democrats do not have them. I think the confusion comes when you see people in the Democratic party who push for socially "immoral" behaviors. Those beliefs (in any party) don't necessarily represent the majority. I would argue that most people do not support the action of abortion, even the people who have had them, but morally agreeing with the action is different from supporting a law.

Republicans have a lot going for their party, because I believe the US still want to live in a "moral" nation; but they lose a lot of people due to bigotry. There are ways to address these issues without making people feel less of a person. Instead of outright making it more difficult for women to have abortions, address the issues that place women in those scenarios to reduce abortions.
#8 Aug 19 2013 at 4:44 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Almalieque wrote:
address the issues that place women in those scenarios to reduce abortions.


They tried, but calling them sluts and whores didn't go over too well.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#9 Aug 19 2013 at 6:54 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
For me, it's more about the difference between what is claimed publicly, and what ends out actually happening when political reality comes into play. At the end of the day, our society does hold certain moral values in high regard. We care about infidelity. We care about theft. We care about bribery. We care about abuse of power. We care about abortion. And we do expect our leaders to share those same positions on those issues. And while all politicians tend to gin up their positions to the audience at hand, it does seem as though Democrats do this to a far greater degree than Republicans, and that their supporters seem far more willing to look the other way when it happens.

While this is obviously a broad brush argument, the general trend does seem to follow this pattern. It's almost like both parties know that these moral positions are important to the voters, but Democrats view them as an obstacle to be overcome, while Republicans see them as virtues to strive to meet. And this attitude applies to supporters on the left and right as well. Both sides are upset when their respective leaders fail to meet those moral expectations, but it really seems like folks on the left care more about such failures to the degree that it may affect their party's power, while those on the right actually care that their leaders failed.

It's related to something I've spoken about in the past. To me, one of the big differences in how liberals and conservatives view politics, is that liberals are ends driven, while conservatives are means driven. Liberals care about the end goal/outcome. Everything along the way is an obstacle to those ends. So a Democrat politician getting embroiled in a scandal is a problem for liberals because it's a scandal which will make it difficult to move towards some important political end, not because of what he did. A Republican doing the same thing is a problem for conservatives because of what he did, period. We believe that how you accomplish things is as important (if not more so) than what you accomplish.

I suppose it's also tied into the idea that conservatives are innately distrustful of government. It's why we don't want it to have too much power, even when our guys are wielding it. We believe that if someone can't be trusted in their personal lives and actions, they probably can't be trusted in their professional/political lives either. Liberals seem to believe (foolishly IMO) that it's ok for a politician to lie, cheat, steal, etc as long as they're doing so "for the cause" so to speak. I think that the problem with that is that if he's willing to lie to the other guys to get what he wants, why do you assume he's not lying to you as well?

It does somewhat come down the setting higher expectations of our leaders than we place on ourselves. We know that not every leader will be perfect, but if we at least set the bar high then we can judge each failure on its own merits and decide what to do about it. But if we just abandon the expectation entirely, that bar will just keep getting lower and lower, and we'll just get more and more scandals and abuses, and horrible leaders. No one's perfect, but it doesn't hurt to at least hold our leaders to some kind of standards.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#10 Aug 19 2013 at 8:18 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
economics


which flavor?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#11 Aug 19 2013 at 8:23 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
And while all politicians tend to gin up their positions to the audience at hand, it does seem as though Democrats do this to a far greater degree than Republicans, and that their supporters seem far more willing to look the other way when it happens.


This is fairly laughably false.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#12 Aug 19 2013 at 8:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
Avatar
****
4,445 posts
Quote:
The Up and Down (left or right?) of Morality.


Its Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A B A

After this you can START.
____________________________
Hi
#13 Aug 19 2013 at 9:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

While this is obviously a broad brush argument, the general trend does seem to follow this pattern


Well thank goodness we qualified the broad brush argument so effectively. Let me try this technique out a little:

While this is obviously a blatant insult, you are a pig fucker.

No, still makes too much sense on it's face. More tautological, Smash, more tautological!


While your view is nothing new, and is based on party line bullshit, only partisan hacks who ignore the facts would even bother to mention it.

THERE we go. Yeah, that's right, dropped the rhyming quatrain. Veritas, ********
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#14 Aug 19 2013 at 9:30 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
address the issues that place women in those scenarios to reduce abortions.


They tried, but calling them sluts and whores didn't go over too well.


Good point..
#15 Aug 20 2013 at 1:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
economics


which flavor?


Kind of a mix I suppose. I think John Maynard Keynes is an *******, but he's not entirely wrong. Government investment to prime a sluggish economy, particularily if that investment is in infrastructure (transportation to move freight, port improvements, electrical grid improvements, data network improvements, etc) that provide a long term tangibal benifit economically or militarily or both are useful and justified in my oppinion. Bailing out a lying sack of crap stock company that has been lying to their investors for decades and whose failure would make room for new, more efficient less corrupt by dint of not having had time to figure otu all the corruption methods, isn't. I believe that rich people are more likely to own and operate large companies that can hire middle class workforces, but I believe self interest will always make them choose profit over job creation unless there is a compelling government backed reason for them to favor job creation. I think taxes are too low across the board, but what tax money is collected is not allocated appropriatly. For example If spending 3 billion on a transportation fix will dramatically improve the economy of a State now, vs. spending 3 billion on education that might improve education several years from now, do the transportation fix first and use the additional tax revenue to fix the education issue. Governments should also subsidize and maintain critical military production infrastructure even when it is an economic drain, but at the same time we need to call out certain military contractors when they are ******** us over. Socialism and communism don't work, and a bunch of of social program spending is crap that should be cut and used to upgrade infrastructure or build our space elevator. We spend billions paying farmers not to produce anything, while at the same time our hard sciences funding is being cut to the bone. I guess bottom line, if a change makes our economy grow faster without enslaving people or stepping on the backs of others to the point where they leave for greener pastures, it's probably good. If it adds crap social programs that takes my money to pay for someone else to get unnecessary foot fungus treatments, or huge increases in long term debt with no real measurable reward I have a problem with it. /shrug.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#16 Aug 20 2013 at 5:08 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Kind of a mix I suppose. I think John Maynard Keynes is an @#%^, but he's not entirely wrong. Government investment to prime a sluggish economy, particularily if that investment is in infrastructure (transportation to move freight, port improvements, electrical grid improvements, data network improvements, etc) that provide a long term tangibal benifit economically or militarily or both are useful and justified in my oppinion. Bailing out a lying sack of crap stock company that has been lying to their investors for decades and whose failure would make room for new, more efficient less corrupt by dint of not having had time to figure otu all the corruption methods, isn't. I believe that rich people are more likely to own and operate large companies that can hire middle class workforces, but I believe self interest will always make them choose profit over job creation unless there is a compelling government backed reason for them to favor job creation. I think taxes are too low across the board, but what tax money is collected is not allocated appropriatly. For example If spending 3 billion on a transportation fix will dramatically improve the economy of a State now, vs. spending 3 billion on education that might improve education several years from now, do the transportation fix first and use the additional tax revenue to fix the education issue. Governments should also subsidize and maintain critical military production infrastructure even when it is an economic drain, but at the same time we need to call out certain military contractors when they are ******** us over. Socialism and communism don't work, and a bunch of of social program spending is crap that should be cut and used to upgrade infrastructure or build our space elevator. We spend billions paying farmers not to produce anything, while at the same time our hard sciences funding is being cut to the bone. I guess bottom line, if a change makes our economy grow faster without enslaving people or stepping on the backs of others to the point where they leave for greener pastures, it's probably good. If it adds crap social programs that takes my money to pay for someone else to get unnecessary foot fungus treatments, or huge increases in long term debt with no real measurable reward I have a problem with it. /shrug..


Holy ****, it's like looking right into the mind of an insomniac 10th grader who drank coffee for the first time. Experimenting with meth? Paragraphs, dude.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#17 Aug 20 2013 at 7:10 AM Rating: Good
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
fronglo wrote:
Quote:
The Up and Down (left or right?) of Morality.


Its Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A B A

After this you can START.


SELECT then START if you're debating with another person.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#18 Aug 20 2013 at 7:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

Kind of a mix I suppose. I think John Maynard Keynes is an @#%^, but he's not entirely wrong. Government investment to prime a sluggish economy, particularily if that investment is in infrastructure (transportation to move freight, port improvements, electrical grid improvements, data network improvements, etc) that provide a long term tangibal benifit economically or militarily or both are useful and justified in my oppinion. Bailing out a lying sack of crap stock company that has been lying to their investors for decades and whose failure would make room for new, more efficient less corrupt by dint of not having had time to figure otu all the corruption methods, isn't. I believe that rich people are more likely to own and operate large companies that can hire middle class workforces, but I believe self interest will always make them choose profit over job creation unless there is a compelling government backed reason for them to favor job creation. I think taxes are too low across the board, but what tax money is collected is not allocated appropriatly. For example If spending 3 billion on a transportation fix will dramatically improve the economy of a State now, vs. spending 3 billion on education that might improve education several years from now, do the transportation fix first and use the additional tax revenue to fix the education issue. Governments should also subsidize and maintain critical military production infrastructure even when it is an economic drain, but at the same time we need to call out certain military contractors when they are ******** us over. Socialism and communism don't work, and a bunch of of social program spending is crap that should be cut and used to upgrade infrastructure or build our space elevator. We spend billions paying farmers not to produce anything, while at the same time our hard sciences funding is being cut to the bone. I guess bottom line, if a change makes our economy grow faster without enslaving people or stepping on the backs of others to the point where they leave for greener pastures, it's probably good. If it adds crap social programs that takes my money to pay for someone else to get unnecessary foot fungus treatments, or huge increases in long term debt with no real measurable reward I have a problem with it. /shrug..


Holy sh*t, it's like looking right into the mind of an insomniac 10th grader who drank coffee for the first time. Experimenting with meth? Paragraphs, dude.


Your inability to use the Quote feature and Bold-ing everything you do quote isn't making it any better.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#19 Aug 20 2013 at 7:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Paying farmers not to produce isn't really a social program so much as it's an economic one. It's a moderating influence to help keep the grain market from crashing in response to a glut or making US grain unreasonably expensive on the world market in low yield seasons.

Whether or not it's good policy or if it's still required now that much of the farming is done by large agribusiness corporations is another question.

Out of curiosity (directed at Kao), did you get into your current profession due to an interest in transportation/infrastructure or is your interest in it mainly a result of your job?

Edited, Aug 20th 2013 8:31am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Aug 20 2013 at 7:30 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
fronglo wrote:
Quote:
The Up and Down (left or right?) of Morality.
Its Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A B A

After this you can START.
SELECT then START if you're debating with another person.
Save the quarter and just throw the machine out the window if that's the game you're playing.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#21 Aug 20 2013 at 8:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Jophiel wrote:

Out of curiosity (directed at Kao), did you get into your current profession due to an interest in transportation/infrastructure or is your interest in it mainly a result of your job?

I come from a long line of highway engineers, going back about 4 generations. I actually wanted to be an aerospace engineer, but with the whole 9/11 thing and no one hiring aerospace engineers, that kind of didn't work out, so I got a degree in security and intel studies instead. The transportation working side was kind of an accident, since the opportunity was there, as I worked in transportation all through college between classes, specifically on the IT side. That's where the background knowledge comes from. The interest portion of it stems mainly from the economy of the state I live in, which is driven 90% by import / export and shipping Prior to 2011, over half of all incoming imported goods and services to the west coast arrived via Washington, which is huge considering California and Oregon in the mix. Since then, that percentage has decreased, but not because California and Oregon are getting a much larger share, but because companies won't deal with the bottlenecks all up and down the I-5 corridor and the rail system and the fact that none of the west coast major ports are deep enough to support post-Panamax sized cargo ships yet, and are finding it cheaper to simply ship or fly everything to the east coast or up the Mississippi. the western half of Washington state in particular is transportation focused. The other major economic factions that drive the economy here deal with export of apples, grain, timber, certain IT concerns in Seattle, and power export from the hydroelectric and nuclear plants. I also have an interest in seismic aspects due mainly to Mt. Saint Helens, a couple well timed earthquakes in California while visiting (Being on a runway in a landing plane during a magnitude 6 earthquake is fun!) , and an unhealthy obsession with geology, and specifically how the infrastructure of Washington stands up seismically knowing that I-5 sits on a major fault line expected to produce a massive earthquake sometime in the next 100 years. So a little of both I guess.

Paragraphs? who needs em!
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#22 Aug 20 2013 at 8:25 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
The way I tend to see it, being an outsider of course (so take it with a large grain of salt.)

Democrats protect people's freedoms and try to keep people well rounded through health, education and wealth equalization. The fix the problem approach. Social engineering, if people don't feel the need to do bad things they won't.

Republicans try to keep people well rounded through direct control of their moral decisions. This is actually the removal of freedom. It's the hit it harder approach. Police state with the illusion of freedom through isolation (people tend to associate "Police state" with Democrats due to positions on gun legislation, but I feel it's the opposite.)

The US needs something in the middle. If you could make that happen before our Conservative party shifts any more towards your Republican overlord ideology that'd be great thanks!
#23 Aug 20 2013 at 9:53 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Almalieque wrote:

Republicans have a lot going for their party, because I believe the US still want to live in a "moral" nation; but they lose a lot of people due to bigotry.

Are you implying that Republicans are 'more' moral than democrats?
Almalieque wrote:
There are ways to address these issues without making people feel less of a person. Instead of outright making it more difficult for women to have abortions, address the issues that place women in those scenarios to reduce abortions.
...and here you imply that abortions are immoral, but tolerated for the sake of the 'woman (ugh).

Why is an abortion immoral?



Edited, Aug 20th 2013 5:55pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#24 Aug 20 2013 at 10:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
gbaji wrote:
At the end of the day, our society does hold certain moral values in high regard. We care about infidelity. We care about theft. We care about bribery. We care about abuse of power. We care about abortion. And we do expect our leaders to share those same positions on those issues.
I'd not add abortion to that list.
Quote:
While this is obviously a broad brush argument, the general trend does seem to follow this pattern. It's almost like both parties know that these moral positions are important to the voters, but Democrats view them as an obstacle to be overcome, while Republicans see them as virtues to strive to meet.
I don't agree. I don't think democrats are clamoring for more and better ways to cheat on their spouses anymore than republicans are. If anything, I'd hold gay marriage up as proof that democrats are striving to eliminate infidelity...much more so than republicans anyways.
Quote:
And this attitude applies to supporters on the left and right as well. Both sides are upset when their respective leaders fail to meet those moral expectations, but it really seems like folks on the left care more about such failures to the degree that it may affect their party's power, while those on the right actually care that their leaders failed.
This is just your thick, dense mind-blinders again - ignore it.
Quote:
It's related to something I've spoken about in the past. To me, one of the big differences in how liberals and conservatives view politics, is that liberals are ends driven, while conservatives are means driven. Liberals care about the end goal/outcome. Everything along the way is an obstacle to those ends. So a Democrat politician getting embroiled in a scandal is a problem for liberals because it's a scandal which will make it difficult to move towards some important political end, not because of what he did. A Republican doing the same thing is a problem for conservatives because of what he did, period. We believe that how you accomplish things is as important (if not more so) than what you accomplish.
You're repeating yourself but using more words. Integrity is a human characteristic. Republican's haven't cornered the market on it - sorry.
Quote:
I suppose it's also tied into the idea that conservatives are innately distrustful of government. It's why we don't want it to have too much power, even when our guys are wielding it.
Smiley: lolThanks for the laugh.

Anyone who's ever had a civics class knows that the government should always operate under heavy scrutiny. Just say that Republicans tend to be more paranoid. Though I'd still dispute it.
Quote:
We believe that if someone can't be trusted in their personal lives and actions, they probably can't be trusted in their professional/political lives either.
yeah thanks, 'we' believe that too.
Quote:
Liberals seem to believe (foolishly IMO) that it's ok for a politician to lie, cheat, steal, etc as long as they're doing so "for the cause" so to speak.
No they don't. But thanks for saying the same wrong thing in like three different ways.
Quote:
I think that the problem with that is that if he's willing to lie to the other guys to get what he wants, why do you assume he's not lying to you as well?
Yes, repetition.

Let me bring you back to a thread about two would be lawmakers running against each other. The video clearly showed the scenario; A debate. One debater held up pictures of the other and attempted to humiliate her for going shopping and wearing a nice outfit. This was his path to win an election. Is this an ok 'means' to you? (say yes as you defended his behavior).

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#25 Aug 20 2013 at 11:37 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
If it adds crap social programs that takes my money to pay for someone else to get unnecessary foot fungus treatments, or huge increases in long term debt with no real measurable reward I have a problem with it. /shrug.
Being rid of mad foot-eating fungus isn't reward enough?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#26 Aug 20 2013 at 11:39 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Yodabunny wrote:

The US needs something in the middle.

Hmmm, like a belly-button.

We need an American Navel!
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 390 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (390)