It was on Yahoo this morning, bylined from a S. Carolina newspaper. Basically said she was an up and coming star on Wall Street and that he was working for a brokerage house but didn't like it much. The story made it seem like he was somewhat of a spoiled kid and she was the brains.
Headlines
South Carolina Gov!!!!
- Thread starter Wrinkleface
- Start date
I don't think any political party has a lock on having persons of low moral fiber within their ranks. And being sanctimonious about values issues doesn't necessarily make those lapses any more or less aggregious.
Believe me when I tell you I don't think any less of Jimmy Swaggart than I do Bill Clinton. And in reality, I don't hold any of these people up to any other standard than their ability to do their jobs. Clinton could have nailed every human female in DC above the age of consent and I wouldn't have given it a second thought had he was getting the job done. In fact, I wonder about some of these guys that don't try to pull this $hit. It takes hubris and a fairly substantial set to do a job like that. I don't want just any pansy sitting in the chair. If my house is on fire, I want the guy that thinks he's flameproof coming to drag me onto the front lawn. If he wants to cram hamsters up his a$$ in his spare time, what do I care?
Believe me when I tell you I don't think any less of Jimmy Swaggart than I do Bill Clinton. And in reality, I don't hold any of these people up to any other standard than their ability to do their jobs. Clinton could have nailed every human female in DC above the age of consent and I wouldn't have given it a second thought had he was getting the job done. In fact, I wonder about some of these guys that don't try to pull this $hit. It takes hubris and a fairly substantial set to do a job like that. I don't want just any pansy sitting in the chair. If my house is on fire, I want the guy that thinks he's flameproof coming to drag me onto the front lawn. If he wants to cram hamsters up his a$$ in his spare time, what do I care?
As long as they leave the hamsters at home when going into a fire...:ack2:
Thanks for the lead: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_sc_governor_profile
I've started wondering where we draw the line between Right to Privacy and Freedom of Information.
Thanks for the lead: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_sc_governor_profile
I've started wondering where we draw the line between Right to Privacy and Freedom of Information.
Ratickle
Founding Member / Super Moderator
Big difference.
We elect officials based on their principles, morals, ethics, and truthfulness. We have nothing else to go on for the most part.
We buy cars based on the value and reputation of the dealership.
If he ran a campaign based on his record, along with the fact he was having an affair, would he have won? If so, then he's fine. If you run a campaign based on you are more of an ethical human than your opponant, you had better be.
fund razor
Founding Member
As long as you buy new hamsters, and not used... I guess that disclosure is not important.
phragle
Charter Member
we elect politicians based on whether we think their publicized agenda is in our best interest, morals ethics and truthfullness do not factor, they are politicans, the have no principles, morals or ethics other than self advancement and media attention. I know that, you know that...who you trying to kid??
old377guy
Charter Member
was humming that last night ...:biggrinjester:
Ratickle
Founding Member / Super Moderator
We hope their publicized agenda is the truth. We doubt it every time, but we continue to hope. Principles, morals, and ethics were what this country was founded on. It was lost sometime in the not so distant past. I do believe Reagan had them.
I'm trying to kid myself. :sifone:
jayboat
Banned
Sorry, but that is total BS. Unlike Sanford, Clinton never claimed any sort of moral/religious high ground.
Sanford has been a terrible governor, a grandstanding do-nothing who obviously 'gave up on his family like that' a while ago.
Maybe not after the blue dress hit the airwaves, but I recall the "Pretty in Pink" interview, and lots of trips to church, and lots of prayer breakfasts, and on, and on, and on. Jay, I know you want to believe that all your lefties are as informed and atheistic as you'd like them to be, but they use religion as much if not more than the Pubbies. They just get their churchin in at more politically correct venues like Jeremiah Wright's joint and the Greater Mt. Zion Calvary Down Home Jesus Come to Meeting AME Temple.....
fund razor
Founding Member
Your post got me thinking about several things while I sip my coffee. Here they are:
Why are morals and religion linked like that? They are two different things and one can exist without the other. Otherwise catechism would be a pre-requisite to ethics courses.
Sanford is a lying cheat. He is no more or less "God's lying cheat" than anybody else. It was not faith-based lying and cheating, it was lying and cheating by somebody who believes in God.
Churches are full of people who make mistakes all week. I mean, sure.... statistically, it can be proven that people who believe in something are more productive, more active in their communities, more generous, are better parents and cost society less. But that doesn't mean that they have claimed high ground or feel that they are any better than anyone else.
Perhaps agnostics feel that anybody who has faith has automatically claimed "moral/religious high ground" because to incorrectly presume the existence of a higher power is to show evidence of a delusional superiority complex. Plus, to discredit those with faith is to credit those without. What if a survey showed that more people without faith called him a hypocrite and more people of faith called him a liar and a cheat? I found this to be interesting, and I appreciate you sparking the thought process.
Personally, I feel that every one of us is a mixed bag and capable of good and bad. Of course people put on whatever public countenance that they wish, and of course we are all actors, and of course we are all hypocrites in one way or another. That thing on the mantle that was a gift from Aunt Peggy that is ugly and only comes out when Aunt Peggy comes over? Exactly. When I suck in my gut so I don't look as fat. Precisely. I don't expect perfection among my fellow man. I expect reasonable restraint. Sanford failed that test. Clinton claimed anything if it helped him in the moment. If Sanford is able to preserve his marriage to his power spouse, he will be in a league with Clinton. The master of cake and eat it too.
It bothers me that Sanford broke the public trust. What an idiot. Stupid, stupid. The fact that he may have broken any covenant with his higher power is between him and that higher power.
Anyway, thanks for having coffee with me this morning Jay. Have a nice day.
cuda
Banned
Just exactly how do you think our present president got elected?
jayboat
Banned
He's the 1% man, haven't you heard? :sifone:
jayboat
Banned
Your post got me thinking about several things while I sip my coffee. Here they are:
Why are morals and religion linked like that? They are two different things and one can exist without the other. Otherwise catechism would be a pre-requisite to ethics courses.
Sanford is a lying cheat. He is no more or less "God's lying cheat" than anybody else. It was not faith-based lying and cheating, it was lying and cheating by somebody who believes in God.
Churches are full of people who make mistakes all week. I mean, sure.... statistically, it can be proven that people who believe in something are more productive, more active in their communities, more generous, are better parents and cost society less. But that doesn't mean that they have claimed high ground or feel that they are any better than anyone else.
Perhaps agnostics feel that anybody who has faith has automatically claimed "moral/religious high ground" because to incorrectly presume the existence of a higher power is to show evidence of a delusional superiority complex. Plus, to discredit those with faith is to credit those without. What if a survey showed that more people without faith called him a hypocrite and more people of faith called him a liar and a cheat? I found this to be interesting, and I appreciate you sparking the thought process.
Personally, I feel that every one of us is a mixed bag and capable of good and bad. Of course people put on whatever public countenance that they wish, and of course we are all actors, and of course we are all hypocrites in one way or another. That thing on the mantle that was a gift from Aunt Peggy that is ugly and only comes out when Aunt Peggy comes over? Exactly. When I suck in my gut so I don't look as fat. Precisely. I don't expect perfection among my fellow man. I expect reasonable restraint. Sanford failed that test. Clinton claimed anything if it helped him in the moment. If Sanford is able to preserve his marriage to his power spouse, he will be in a league with Clinton. The master of cake and eat it too.
It bothers me that Sanford broke the public trust. What an idiot. Stupid, stupid. The fact that he may have broken any covenant with his higher power is between him and that higher power.
Anyway, thanks for having coffee with me this morning Jay. Have a nice day.
Morals and religion are 'linked like that' because the thumpers constantly co-join the two at the hip. It's their little reality- you know, god's will etc. Rather than calling it what it is- simple human nature, all things moral must be connected to some vengeful diety who lives in the sky. Ok, fine- believe what you want, but I'd prefer you keep it out of the govt house.
Your comment about agnostics missed my point, which was: this guy pretty much based his political career on pandering to the religious extreme and it bit him on his holy roller a$$. That's where my hypocrite comment came from. Those creepy azzwipes are all the same- "pay no attention to the fact that I've been divorced three times, just look how I've wrapped myself in this family values banner!" Fcuk every one of them. Hard.
This ridiculous story is not over. This lying sack of sh!t wouldn't have come clean if the local paper hadn't had those emails. They only told him about them at 12 noon the day of the press conference, after it had been announced. My guess is he was gonna continue to press the 'driving up the coast' story until this inconvenient fact came to his attention. One other thing, it has also come out that his itenerary was originally set for TEN FREAKING DAYS in Argentina. What kind of incompetent idiot thinks he can drop from sight as a sitting American governor for that length of time and not be missed? And if it was a breakup trip, how does it take ten days to breakthefuk up with someone?
Just another repressed southern jeebus freak who lost his mind over pusswa.
Ratickle
Founding Member / Super Moderator
Hate it when that happens......:sifone:
fund razor
Founding Member
I am a human nature guy, rather than a perfect person guy. So we agree on that for sure.
I wasn't aware that he had pandered that much, but not my state so maybe I missed it. Plus, I tend to ignore the panderers and anyone who seems to be closed mindedly towing a line. I don't know how holy roller he is or isn't, and I don't know to what extent he was repressed (cause I just don't know)... but I certainly agree that he is a liar who got busted. I never knew too much about the guy. But clearly a big liar who got busted hard. I can't say that it inspires any emotion from me one way or another. I am more of a "glad it's not me" kind of guy than a "whoo-hoo that will knock him down a peg" kind of guy. Not that I suggest that one is better than the other. Maybe if I lived in South Carolina I would be elated that he is getting his comeuppance, so to speak.
Extremism scares me. Especially extreme idealism. On either end of the spectrum. The extreme conservative/fundamentalist/whatever-you-want-to-call-them scare me and the extreme liberal does as well.
The reason they scare me is they pander to those that can't or won't think for themselves. These people have a prepackaged set of answers and the weak-minded only need to hop onto the train and go along for the ride. Many of these pseudo-intellectuals pattot these ideas and ideals and sit around quoting them to each other and bathing in the sensation that these are their own thoughts.
I'd prefer to do my own thinking. And I appreciate the original thoughts of others. Now don't get me wrong- I firmly believe that we all need some sort of compass to guide that thinking.
The reason they scare me is they pander to those that can't or won't think for themselves. These people have a prepackaged set of answers and the weak-minded only need to hop onto the train and go along for the ride. Many of these pseudo-intellectuals pattot these ideas and ideals and sit around quoting them to each other and bathing in the sensation that these are their own thoughts.
I'd prefer to do my own thinking. And I appreciate the original thoughts of others. Now don't get me wrong- I firmly believe that we all need some sort of compass to guide that thinking.
Similar threads
