Gov. Sanford Scandal

[vjacqb]

how can you talk in public about having found your soulmate who's not your spouse?? that's just disrespectful and cruel.

maybe i'm naive to think that this is a black & white thing. you're married. if you want to get it on with someone else, then divorce your spouse first. if you can go through with it, then that means you're doing the right thing. sure, you'll end up hurting your ex, but at least you're taking responsibility for it.

what's with all these politicians who can't keep it in their pants?

 

[deep]

S.C. Dems say GOP vote gives Sanford cover

The Associated Press

South Carolina Democratic leaders are criticizing a state GOP vote to publicly reprimand Gov. Mark Sanford, rather than ask him to resign, as a meaningless move that provides him cover to stay in office.

The state Republican Party's executive committee voted late Monday to censure Sanford for failing to be a good Republican and for breaking the public's trust. The censure's wording did not specify how Sanford fell "below the standards expected of Republican elected officials."

The vote came nearly two weeks after Sanford returned from a mysterious disappearance and admitted he had been in Argentina with his mistress. Sanford says he will not resign.

GOP officials say the vote ended the matter, and they're moving on - a declaration Democratic leaders found amusing.

.

 

[Hobo13]

I find it amusing that the Democratic leaders found it amusing.

 

[Irvine511]

I find it amusing that the Democratic leaders found it amusing.

i find it amusing that Republicans get really, really worked up about sex and want to legislate it, and they're the one's writing telenovelas about themselves and cruising for blowjobs in airport bathrooms.

 

[mskitkat]

dont you all know politicians are most all hypocrites, they preach about one and seem to always do another........unfortunately.......and then get caught

 

[Irvine511]

dont you all know politicians are most all hypocrites, they preach about one and seem to always do another........unfortunately.......and then get caught

i also think that politicians are human, and humans with a great deal of power and sense of entitlement.

i think lots of people meet someone other than their spouse and go through what Sanford went through. i think lots of people have silly dalliances with people half their age like Clinton. i think lots of deeply closeted men cruise in unhealthy places like airport bathrooms.

i have several ounces of compassion for all these people.

what i don't have compassion for are those who moralize from the floor of Congress, those who think that there is only one "normal" way for human relationships to occur and that any deviation from the standard should be punished.

life is messy. love is messy. sex is messy.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Sanford should have resigned, but won't.

His love affair is a proven distraction from his job. He did this while he was on the clock. He lied about where he was going. What if a natural disaster struck? I don't call that leadership.

I'm just relieved he has no chance in the 2012 presidential race. He was boring and inarticulate.

Luckily, he is ineligible to run again for Governor in 2010, when his term is finished.

After seeing this man continue to sob over this Maria character at his press conferences, it's truthfully sickening. My only hope for him is that he invites his real family back into his life.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I don't think his sobbing is what's sickening-it's what Irvine referred to that's sickening.. his moralizing on the relationships of others while he lives the way he wants to live. Physician heal thyself.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I don't think his sobbing is what's sickening-it's what Irvine referred to that's sickening.. his moralizing on the relationships of others while he lives the way he wants to live. Physician heal thyself.

No argument with Irvine's main point. He should live up to the standards that define his worldview. "The way he wants to live" contradicts that worldview.

But what's sickening the most is that he neglected responsibility and potentially put the people of South Carolina at a greater risk by doing so.

 

[Irvine511]

No argument with Irvine's main point. He should live up to the standards that define his worldview. "The way he wants to live" contradicts that worldview.

But what's sickening the most is that he neglected responsibility and potentially put the people of South Carolina at a greater risk by doing so.

agreed about the neglecting of responsibility.

however, when it comes to "standards that define his worldview," that's totally fine for Mr. Sanford. he can and do what he wants and live how he thinks he should, and if he falls short of that, then it's up to him how he wants to pick up the pieces and proceed with his life.

i just have a problem with legislating a specific set of morals, and under that falls issues like abstinence-only education, same-sex marriage, etc.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

i just have a problem with legislating a specific set of morals, and under that falls issues like abstinence-only education, same-sex marriage, etc.

I respect that argument, but I don't agree with it in absolutes.

It is asking society to redefine their social order by imposing new definitions to appease those who practice certain sexual behaviors, and want it known beyond closed doors.

The same argument could be made about taxing carbon emissions (or any use of energy, for that matter), seizing firearms, regulating what can be said behind the pulpit, or spanking children for bad behavior.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

It is asking society to redefine their social order by imposing new definitions to appease those who practice certain sexual behaviors, and want it known beyond closed doors.

Are you talking about gay marriage? I'm confused..I hope

 

[BVS]

Yes, let's please not take this thread that direction...

 

[Macfistowannabe]

MrsS, the answer is yes.

I did want to stay on topic, though.

Not every thread has to be a gay marriage thread.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

MrsS, the answer is yes.

I did want to stay on topic, though.

Not every thread has to be a gay marriage thread.

Yes but I think if you post something like that you have to think that someone might question it. And that you are possibly taking it in that direction by posting it. That is not what they are seeking to do by wanting to be married (it's about love and commitment, not "sexual behaviors") , and that's all I'll say about that

We were talking about the double standard that this man lived by. It's ridiculous to disparage faithful and committed relationships and marriages of gay people while you are behaving like that in your own straight marriage. And hypocritical.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I have no argument with the hypocrisy factor you've mentioned. Clinton signed a little piece called the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. Is there a hypocrisy factor in that? Maybe so, but it's hardly relevant.

I just think there are many sickening factors to this story.

It makes more sense to me to consider how his love affair led to the neglect of his fundamental duties as governor, first and foremost. That's what separates this from many other political sex scandals. Hypocrisy is something to expect from most any politician.

 

[deep]

I have no argument with the hypocrisy factor you've mentioned. Clinton signed a little piece called the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. Is there a hypocrisy factor in that?

I am so tired of hearing Clinton - DOMA blah, blah, blah


It passed overwhelmingly in both houses

look at the numbers

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,

85 % and 84 %

if he vetoed it, it would have been over-ridden in a heartbeat, it only takes 67% to override his veto


not to mention it was right before the Nov 96 election.
A President that had marital problems vetoing a Defense of Marriage act 6 weeks before the 96 election that congress and the American public supported by 85%.

These are the facts of Sept - Oct 1996 and DOMA.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Deep, quick points.
1. It's just a simple example.
2. Popularity doesn't mean it's not hypocritical.
3. As I said at the time I posted, it's hardly relevant to begin with. Consider the other factors: tax-funded adultery, sex on the clock, etc.

 

[deep]

I know I responded to you.

But, I meant that more for the so-called progressives that constantly attack Clinton for signing DOMA in the fall of 1996.

Perhaps they would have been happier with a weakened Clinton that everyone said only vetoed DOMA because because he was an adulterer.

Also, it would have had big effect on the Nov election, I can't say Dole would have one.



Also, I do agree with your opinion that Sanford should resign for failing his duties as Governor.
Leaving the state with no one in charge. Also, his dishonesty. A Governor that lies, or intentionally misleads his staff has no credibility, Especially, when we find out there is a pattern of this.

 

[Irvine511]

It is asking society to redefine their social order by imposing new definitions to appease those who practice certain sexual behaviors, and want it known beyond closed doors.

my sex life is as private as yours.

my love life is as public as yours.

it's quite insulting to reduce sexual orientation to simple friction.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

^ No need to be insulted.

I just dismiss the ideas of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." I also believe there is a difference between "political gays" and strictly "sexual gays," just as you believe there's a distinction between political Christians and strictly religious Christians.

If you want to have more of a discussion on that, please feel free to send me a private message.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

i know i responded to you.

But, i meant that more for the so-called progressives that constantly attack clinton for signing doma in the fall of 1996.

ok.

 

[Irvine511]

^ No need to be insulted.

I just dismiss the ideas of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." I also believe there is a difference between "political gays" and strictly "sexual gays," just as you believe there's a distinction between political Christians and strictly religious Christians.

If you want to have more of a discussion on that, please feel free to send me a private message.

could you please explain this further?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

could you please explain this further?

Only if you ask...

"Sexual orientation."

"Gender identity."

It's Orwellian buzzword nonsense.

I would say that the non-political homosexual goes about his business without any desire to rewrite the dictionary. He understands that society is society, and could care less about how the state defines his relationships, so long as the SWAT team leaves him alone.

The political homosexual is just the opposite. He wants to force society to accept his behavior, anywhere, anytime. If it feels good, do it by the side of the road. If the people don't like it, it's "bigotry" (that's one of the nicer ways of putting it). The political homosexual has a long list of terminology to indoctrinate others with. He pushes every institution imaginable to indoctrinate others with the verbiage as well.

 

[BVS]

I would say that the non-political homosexual goes about his business without any desire to rewrite the dictionary. He understands that society is society, and could care less about how the state defines his relationships, so long as the SWAT team leaves him alone.

So if we had more non-political negroes they would still be at the back of the bus because society is society...

It's still true the conservatives still have no honest reasoning against gay marriage.

 

[yolland]

I don't consider myself a politicized heterosexual, but seeing as how I'm married, I certainly do care how the state defines my relationship. I'm afraid I've also been known to force a little hetero PDA down other people's throats from time to time.

 

[Irvine511]

I'm afraid I've also been known to force a little hetero PDA down other people's throats from time to time.

you know, i don't care what you do behind closed doors -- in fact, i don't even want to know what you do -- and i'm certainly not going have you thrown in jail or anything, but for the love of Pete, why do you have to do it in public and flaunt it in front of my kids and then i'm forced to explain just what it is that you do when you do it and that's really not a conversation i'd like to have, thankyouverymuch.

 

[Irvine511]

I would say that the non-political homosexual goes about his business without any desire to rewrite the dictionary. He understands that society is society, and could care less about how the state defines his relationships, so long as the SWAT team leaves him alone.

The political homosexual is just the opposite. He wants to force society to accept his behavior, anywhere, anytime. If it feels good, do it by the side of the road. If the people don't like it, it's "bigotry" (that's one of the nicer ways of putting it). The political homosexual has a long list of terminology to indoctrinate others with. He pushes every institution imaginable to indoctrinate others with the verbiage as well.

i guess you're right.

i should just accept my inferior status and get on with it. i should be thankful that no one is throwing me in jail or chopping off my testicles. the least i can offer in return for such tolerance is not tell anyone about my behavior.

 

[yolland]

you know, i don't care what you do behind closed doors -- in fact, i don't even want to know what you do -- and i'm certainly not going have you thrown in jail or anything, but for the love of Pete, why do you have to do it in public and flaunt it in front of my kids and then i'm forced to explain just what it is that you do when you do it and that's really not a conversation i'd like to have, thankyouverymuch.

Just say we're perverts whose "relationship" is obviously based on lust rather than commitment to providing a stable and wholesome family environment. That's usually what we tell our kids when they ask about someone.

 

[deep]

I'm afraid I've also been known to force a little hetero PDA down other people's throats from time to time.

fingers in ears

"la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la"


Didn't Ask. Don't Tell.