A governor's indiscretion met with the media's scorn and bias by the American news media

[flightvideo]

There is no press anymore. There is a media. A press seeks to keep people informed. The media seeks to pander to people's ignorance for financial gain.

(Doing my part, video: mB-5VxuR9FQ)

[AtlasShruggery]

Mark Sanford: Another Family Values Republican. It's all the fault of the Librul Media that Sanford couldn't keep his dick in his pants.

As a self-proclaimed Fiscal Conservative, can we assume that Sanford flew first class at taxpayer expense?

[CERCARIA]

You have good points.What angers people is the hypocrisy.And once these guys were found out they don't come completely clean they do spin and damage control.A couple of real pieces of work.

[HannibalFL86]

We will see a free press when the population realizes that Presidential debates between potential candidates are slightly more important than the Superbowl/World Series.

Soon, I hope.. but somehow, I know it wont be.

[phuture101]

Propyapper the difference is Republicans run on family values and Democrats don't they just hae family that they love. Unlike Republicans who don't really love there familys thats why they have to convence them selfs by saying it. If it sounds Good then it's all good. Even if they don't live up to there own family values. Again Sanford went to the Media. Sanford admited that he has been seeeing her for 8yrs. So he did not Rightiously admit to the affair.

[Pandonodrim]

Slanted coverage, right... Your dumb-arse party almost impeached Clinton over a BJ and you think it's biased coverage?

Meanwhile the war-criminal Bush gets off scott-free. "What a world... that hath such people in it...."

[TheKaijuSciFiGuy]

The difference is Clinton denied the affair, Sanford came clean.

[Pandonodrim]

Except I wasn't comparing the Clinton affair to Sanford, I was comparing the impeachment grounds between Clinton and Bush.

Should Clinton have come clean? Absolutely. But Sanford is another of the many examples of the raging hypocrisy in the "Christian Right." "Coming clean" doesn't absolve you of your responsibility or shame. "All is not forgiven" just because you fess up to what you do...

Not that I care anyway. It's Republicans who like to shove their noses in peoples' bedroom affairs.

[TheKaijuSciFiGuy]

I am not a big Bush supporter, but believe it or not. Bush never broke the law. He just made a lot of unpopular decisions.

[Pandonodrim]

"Bush never broke the law?"

You seem like a smart guy. It's remarkable that you believe that.

Bugliosi wrote a book called "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder." It lays out, in great detail, the extremely good case any state AG would have for prosecuting Bush for murder. And that's just the beginning.

Clinton lied about a sex scandal? Bush lied about A WAR. How is that not breaking the law? Beyond that he's violated the Constitution by taking away people's rights. The list goes on.

[TheKaijuSciFiGuy]

State AG's do not have the right to prosecute Federal violations, those go through the Federal system. How do you consider the war a lie when it frees millions of people from a dictator? Murder is defined as The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse. Since Bush never killed anyone. Bugliosi's book is just a fantasy.

[Pandonodrim]

Try reading the book first before making such accusations. Murder is not a "federal violation" in the way you are talking about it here. He's not suggesting AG's prosecute Bush for war crimes - he's suggesting they prosecute him for murder.

You can be tried and convicted of murder even if you aren't the one who actually kills the person - learn something about law please.

You're insane: He LIED - that was not the "reasons" he gave for going to war. They made that up afterward. Wake up.

[TheKaijuSciFiGuy]

well leftists need to wake up. The case for war is just. Been there done that. Bush will never be prosecuted.

[Pandonodrim]

Wow... "case for war is just." Glad to see you are as insane as the rest of the "conservatives" in this country.

War is never "just." And until that mindset is defeated we are doomed to allow vicious tyrants like Bush to control us and murder our children. I'd feel sorry for you, but I'm too full of disgust and loathing at your complacency.

[TheKaijuSciFiGuy]

At least Idon't resort to name calling

[Pandonodrim]

Yeah, you just settle for being as offensive as possible without cussing.

[Pandonodrim]

Though I will note that a federal prosecutor could also bring the case against Bush. District or state attorneys would need to bring the case up in the specific area where a soldier died.

[TheKaijuSciFiGuy]

Then let's prosecute Ted Kennedy for killing Mary Jo Kopechne

[Pandonodrim]

Another example of the raving, psychotic lunacy of your type: compare a president who gets thousands of Americans killed because of a lie to a senator who gets in a car accident. Is there no limit to your idiocy?

And, you know what? Go ahead, prosecute him.

Except that Kennedy already plead guilty (leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury).

What's wrong with you people?

[TheKaijuSciFiGuy]

The findings on the Kennedy case:

"Kopechne and Kennedy did not intend to return to Edgartown" at the time they left the party.

"Kennedy did not intend to drive to the ferry slip".

"[Kennedy]'s turn onto Dike Road was intentional".

[Joe402]

Party of Values

[vince8520]

totaly right.

John Edward was cheating on his wife while she was fighting cancer !!!!

How wrong is that.

[phuture101]

John McCain left his wife when she was on death's bed. Newt Was cheating at the same time Clinton was but said NOTHING! ProbBuster You're Lost! The media coverage on Clinton was Daily! Fox news did 15 second coverage of Ensign and Sanford! With in 2 weeks Two so-called conservatives fell off there family values issue that they run on! The media should cover Republicans for cheating and for lying to there people for votes. Stop talikng famliy values and you don't belive in family!

[ScarlettKnights]

Hey now, are you making fun of our southern accents......... just kidding.

Perhaps the reason the news media do not report all of the affairs of the left because there are only 24 hours in a day; lol

5 stars, love your videos

[richard47129]

The Clinton sex scandals lowered the moral bar a long time ago. But Clinton lied to a grand jury. It wasn't a case of faulty memory. He knew the truth. It wasn't a perjury trap, it was perjury. THAT is what got him in trouble. If we can forgive that, then there's practically no standard left to judge our politicians by short of cannibalism. But I'm certain that is Obama is found picking human flesh out from between his teeth our MSM will go into overdrive to lower even that bar further.

[mildseven73]

why Bill Clinton wasn't critisized so much?

[rakrobn]

Bc he wasn't a lecturing hypocrite and being the police of other people's personal lives like the GOP is.

[dokkiro]

Mark Sanford makes good headlines. You can't blame that on media. Media is not biased in my opinion. If Sanford had gay sex with teenage boys I don't think we would be as interested in this news story. Vin Diesel said he was gay and all the sudden tabloid paparazzies stopped following him around. Who wants to see Vin diesel kissing another guy?

[4u2b1ib12]

You have it all wrong, when it comes to the media.

Gov. Sanford is a hypocrite! He was a big-mouth when it came to fidelity, creationism, and family.

You probably view Fox News. "Stupid is, as stupid does," said Forrest Gump. If you want to be liked, face the root cause-Gov. Sanford sniveled at Clinton and the like for infidelity, that he railed against.

I agree that the media is bias, and woefully unprofessional, when it comes to favoritism.

Stick to your lost causes, of God and religion.

[makeinstall]

I did not have sexual relations with that woman?

Isn't it funny how the clintonbots defend Bill but are jumping all over the evil republican.

Damn people, sex has nothing to do with party and everything to do with a persons character. And frankly, have a good life Mark Sanford.

And hope your family fairs well especially your kids: Marshall, Landon, Bolton, and Blake and your poor wife.

Damn, why do people never think about the consequences to their actions.

[robertmike57]

Gee, this Sanford uses taxpayer money to see his mistress, now only promising to repay it now that he was caught. The guy can't be reached in an emergency. Now, just how did that big bad liberal media cause Sanford to do any of that?

Face it, Sanford is a corrupt sleaze.

[rakrobn]

Also dumbass PropagandaBuster, The State paper had those emails in DECEMBER and didn't release it until now. You'd defend Mark Foley you pedophile.

[dokkiro]

wow i never even heard of mark Foley before. i wonder why.

[rakrobn]

Mark Foley was all over the news retard.

[rakrobn]

Yeah dumbass, that's bc conservatives talk about how the GOP is the party of "family values". Conservatives being hypocritical about family values is why it is treated differently. Now go take your medication. Also he charged taxpayers for his trip to Argentina.

[bittergunowner12]

Oh please and Democrats are a shining beacon of ethics and moral values?

[rakrobn]

I never said that bittergunowner12. Learn to read. They do not lecture other people about "small town family values" and having a holier than thou attitude that the GOP has, and then shown to be hypocrites. That's why the spotlight is brighter on the GOP as they ACTIVELY talk about how they are the party of "morals" and want to be the Christian Taliban moral police of everyone else, except when it comes to following it themselves.

[bittergunowner12]

They sure lecture people on ethics. Oh and btw I can read. Moron.

[wittumy]

usag...was the country involved in two wars and in the middle of an economic nightmare back then? When did I support the killing of dissenters by the government?

[wittumy]

usag....of course you'd love the government to shut down...being right is more important that what's good for the country....maybe people can die too.

[CloeBuckingham]

Well, my understanding is that the last time the Federal Government was shut down, nothing bad happened.

Clinton is credited with balancing the budget, but that seems to be more of a consequence of Clinton and the Republican House of Representatives being at loggerheads and neither being able to get through desired spending.

Problems aren't ruining the planet as much as solutions. The government's cures are usually worse than the disease, real or imagined.

[wittumy]

usag when did I suggest picking up conservatives because I thought they commited a crime?

I just gave you example of two non-conservatives who they followed....can't you read or comprehend?

[wittumy]

usag...I know you have this thing about verification but this is the US. We have laws. You cannot pick up people because you "think" they commited a crime. You cannot come out with a story until you can prove it...or you get sued. Both stories were found to be true and both stories aired. That they only follow conservatives is in you mind honey....they hounded Clinton, Mahoney and conditt. I suppose Gary Hart just held a press conference to announce the destruction of his political career.

[wittumy]

If the news media knew of John Edwards extra marital affair why did Fox News not run with the story? The answer is....no one had proof. Keep up the propaganda Propo you're a master.

[wittumy]

Of course I knew you'd be whining about this one Propo. But why don't you have the decency to include in your video the fact that the Governor lied to his staff and was completely AWOL from his sworn duties. You also don't include that the media had suspicions about Sanford as they did with Edwards. What they didn't have was proof but I understand you aren't too keen on verification.

The media did what the media does...follow stories. Boy was this a whopper...hypocracy does sell doesn't it?

[CloeBuckingham]

But most of the time was a weekend, and they were out of session, right?

[wittumy]

Cloe....a governor RUNS the state. He isn't a legislator.

[CloeBuckingham]

But anyone will admit that we need a break from time to time. What's the point of having a Lieutenant Governor, if not to take up the slack, when you're having an affair with an Argentine woman? ;-)

I want to see all the governors spend more time recharging. I heard that when Gingrich shut down the Federal government went on as normal, except for a few people who had planned trips to national parks.

Let's fire all the legislators except California's. All the states just copy California anyway.

[magie19475]

Hi Compatriot PB. Let's call it what it is by the Christian standpoint - not indiscretion or EMAffair - but adultery. I have to call you on this one as not fair. Former President Clinton was grilled by the media [including Letterman] for his adultery with a young lady. [blue dress hint] It was a costly investigation to the public too. Did the media go too far in releasing the letters - are they open to investigation as far as the Governor's activities. I don't think so.

[CloeBuckingham]

What does Christianity have to do with being a governor? There is a separation of church and state.

Christianity is something you take on faith. You shouldn't expect others to believe it without evidence.

[magie19475]

The discussion is not about Christianity. Both Compatriot PB and I are both Catholic. In the Catholic faith this constitute adultery. It may be ok by you, but in my view it isn't. Republicans stand on a family values platform - the Democrats on a hedonistic platform. There is a complete difference of the two.

[magie19475]

If you actually read my post you would see that my main objection is that whether the Governor was paid his salary during his unexplained leave or excursion and/or was funded on public monies. They also could not find him. He was supposed to be running in the presidential 2012 election for the Republicans. I'm glad they found out what is true as far as him now instead of during the election. Which would have been aired on 100 different stations of the adultery alone.

[magie19475]

Not to mention an exclusive interview on Oprah - she is an Obama supporter to the seams. EVERYTHING would have been aired near the election if Sanford had decided to run. Better it be revealed now.

[CloeBuckingham]

As long as it's not with a North Korean spy, I don't really care where Obama sticks his dong. What I do care about are his disastrous fiscal policies that create only a few, temporary jobs but greatly balloon the federal deficit.

[magie19475]

Why do you care about President Obama's fiscal policies when you were going to pay Sanford to sit on the beach in Argentina and get paid for it? You just contradicted yourself. President Obama is a hedonist so if he thinks it will work spending everyone elses money why should anybody be concerned how he does it? At least GM might come out with a State approved hybrid car - so that might be ok.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

And you are quite right on the funding issue. It will need hashing out. If it was funded, thats quite high on the BS factor.

Not to be pithy, but California isn't even paying for fireworks for July 4th. America's Independence celibration, no parades, no fireworks, no nothing. But Sanford gets long weekends at Argentina? If I lived in SC, I'd be pissed if it were on the payroll.

[CloeBuckingham]

I believe in gay marriage, because it supports family values. The reason you have Republican toilet sex is because gay relationships are stigmatised. If gay relationships were socially acceptable, it will decrease promiscuity. For example, if Adam and Steve's families and friends support their marriage, if one cheats, he will get blame not only from his husband but from everyone else. When you oppress gays, they hang out in places like San Francisco and develop their own underclass immorality.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

Crazy enough, but I agree with you.

And San Fran... been there once. Its an... interesting place.  And for the longest time I thought the South Park guys were exaggerating their "Smug" episode. ^_^

[CloeBuckingham]

I felt uncomfortable in parts of San Francisco, but that is more about my sense of aesthetics than my sense of morality.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

I rather thought SF was classy, but in a "new money" kind of way. None of the people would take a moment, chat at the bistro, etc. I don't want to say snobbery, but I don't know how else to describe it. The beauty of a city is lost when the people are crude mannered, after all.

Now San Diego, thats my town. None of this "tuck in a tie-dye t-shirt to get into a dive-bar" nonsense.

[CloeBuckingham]

I am not sure a little sex with a woman on the side ruins a man's reputation. It enhanced Clinton's reputation among certain segments of the electorate who saw him as manly.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

When a man has enhanced and based his reputation on "family values," and made campaign commercials touting his family as his "highest priority," then yes, a little sex with a woman on the side does ruin his reputation.

Nobody sees a man as "manly" for getting a blowjob. Its assumed they're getting them, if they aren't brain-dead.

[CloeBuckingham]

I don't want a politician whose family is his highest priority. I want a politician who will get the result that are needed by the millions of other families in his zone of influence. Gandhi was such a politician. He enlisted his family on his quest rather than doting on them.

Once again, what do you care about? A blow job or paying more taxes? What these politicians do on their leisure time does not bother me. The point is that they advance your agenda, right?

[magie19475]

Gandhi was a holy man, not a politician.

So you are saying as long as Sanford feeds the entitlement issues of other his life doesn't really matter all that much.

What agenda would that be?

[CloeBuckingham]

Who said anything about entitlements? I oppose entitlements. There you go putting words in my mouth.

Let's say that you oppose gay marriage. If you have a choice between Sanford the adulterer who also opposes gay marriage or a Democrat who is faithful to his wife but is in favour of gay marriage, who do you pick?

[magie19475]

Neither.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

If you consider that adultery is not only a massive lie to ones family and constituents, but also a massive 'sin' in his respect for his own Christian religion... if a man is willing to lie and cheat with those consequences, then I'd prefer the honest man who disagrees with me on a singular issue.

There is much you can tell about ones politics by the way he treats his family, friends, etc. Thats why politicians often tout the "family-man" link in the first place.

[magie19475]

Hi D.Chinchilla. I agree. As far as the Christian faith to commit adultery is commandment breaking. Christians are to follow the Lord's commandments. It reflects a persons character if they play fast and loose with their faith, family, friends - so it only reflects they won't think much about playing fast and loose with the community at large as well.

[CloeBuckingham]

At the time of the 10 Commandments, slavery was allowed, and the bible talks about the inheritance of slaves. Polygamy was also allowed. So what's your point exactly?

What do you mean "Christians are to follow"? Who says? Christians hardly follow the Bible. They just pick and choose what to follow.

100 years ago, Christians were obsessed with the sin of masturbation, far more so than homosexuality. It's just a fad.

You can justify anything by finding a Biblical passage.

[magie19475]

Polygamy - or the having of concubines - may have been allowed, but the Christian faith does not allow for it. Jesus asserts one woman one man. In the book of Genesis God took one rib to create one woman for one man - not 5 ribs for one man. The main basis for 'polygamy' is for having many children. It was viewed as a symbol of wealth. Farmers/shepherds would have many children to work the farm/tend flocks. The Christian faith does not approve slavery.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

We're not talking about polygamy. Strange enough, polygamy is the MOST common marriage arrangement worldwide, through human history.

And yes, the Christian faith DID approve of slavery. Don't cop out.

[magie19475]

Where exactly in the Bible does Jesus approve of slavery? I haven't read that so far in my Bible Study. Old Testament texts are judeo - New Testament is Christian. There is a difference between the two books.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

Cherry picking. Christians do not get a cop out of the old testiment.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Jesus, Matthew 5, 17 to 20.

I the LORD do not change." Malachi 3, 6 to 10.

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Hebrews 13, 8

Your old testiment is just as relevant as the new, as dictated by your own Biblical teachings.

[magie19475]

Hi D.Chinchilla. My interpretation of this is that Jesus is the awaited Messiah who would be the fulfillment. I'm not seeing this as in reference to the acceptance or promotion of slavery. I'm going to look up what scripture you did quote tomorrow to read it in context.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

Your interpretation? I didn't realize the words of Jesus were optional.

My point is that it doesn't matter what your personal translation is. You indicated the old testiment wasn't relevant. I gave you scripture from your own text why you are incorrect.

I'm sure you'll interpret the context differently so that you're right, nonetheless. This would also be a cop out.

[magie19475]

I am giving you what my interpretation of the text says to me in what you say it says to you. Jesus' words are not optional to a believer. The old testiment is relevant, but more from the historical/prophetic background. The Bible is actually a full account of the history and future of the world, and how it applies to the believer. Like I said before we agree to disagree.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

Now suddenly, when I give you scriptures, you change your tune like a lovebird in heat. NOW its relevant? That isn't what you said before. Were you lying, or is it just convenient to change your mind to protect your belief?

The words are there in black and white. I don't have a decoder ring, and neither do you. Read the words for what they are, not for what you WANT them to be. Jesus, I think, makes himself perfectly clear, and I doubt he needs your translation skills to clarify.

[CloeBuckingham]

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

[CloeBuckingham]

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

[CloeBuckingham]

Jesus also did not say one word about homosexuality.

Christians borrow the elements of hate they want from the Old Testament to persecute gays and then quote the New Testament when they want to each shellfish or wear poly blends.

[hoochee002]

Who cares about your Christian views? Do you think the US should be a Christian theocracy? Or a place where people of any religion could live. Probably your ancestors when to the US to get away from religious intolerance.

[magie19475]

Actually partly it was to get away from Nazis and Soviets.

[CloeBuckingham]

You are just making up a justification. So anyone can interpret the bible any way they want.

Did Jesus really talk about polygamy? Or was it Paul?

If you read Jesus and Paul, they did not seem to be representing the same point of view.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

Quite right. His cost was, in his view, his immortal soul. He gambled with it nonetheless.

Being an effective politician is not enough. Hitler was effective too. (I'm NOT comparing him to Sanford, just the idea of effective politicianing).

[CloeBuckingham]

Adultery is just a word. It's a social construct. It's against human evolution. And it's normal. Soloman had 1000 wives. Most people do it. According to the Catholic church, remarrying is adultery. It is living in sin.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

Adultery is a cultural issue, actually. Its not "against evolution," but it is natural. We are, after all, only technically "semi-monagomous." This really isn't the point though, because in Sanfords own words, his Christian faith defines his knowledge and perspective on adultery. He made it clear he violated his own ideal, so the evolutionary details really aren't directly relevant.

And if you think we adulterize, just check out bonobos. ^_^

[magie19475]

When two people marry they generally go into the church to bless their union. The Bible asserts that this is a union between a man and a woman. [the natural order] They vow - and the Bible asserts we are to keep a vow made - to remain faithful until death do them part. They promise before God that this is what they WILL do. They are then one person united by God. So Adultery is not just a word.

[magie19475]

The Bible also asserts that people should remain unmarried due to the inclination of vow/commandment breaking. Marriage in the Christian faith is ordained by God, and is what the ideal is. Jesus said that his followers are to follow the Lord's commandments.

[CloeBuckingham]

I believe in Shinto, not Christianity. To me, that's just superstitious hooey.

If Christians followed Jesus, they would turn the other cheek and love their enemies. But who ever does that?

I think that Jesus was too deep for such primitive West Asians to understand. Israel was fairly primitive compared to India and China.

And may of those myths about loaves of bread were plagiarised from Buddhist texts written 400 years earlier.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

And thats fine... for them. So long as they hold to that ideal. But the moment they break it, they are liars of a specific, crude kind. There's no reason we should *know* all this, mind you, but it does tell us what his real priorities are. I personally would care to know far less about my politicians sex lives...

[CloeBuckingham]

Don't confuse church marriage with state marriage. The Catholic church does not (or did not) recognise state marriage. The couple must be baptised, confirmed, and then married in the Catholic church.

Adultery is not just a word for people who buy into the Catholic worldview. But it is just a word for those who don't.

It's nice that you have all these beliefs based on faith. But the USA is not a theocracy. Decisions are based on evidence.

[magie19475]

I don't at all confuse the difference between marriage blessed by the Church and 'marriage' sanctioned by the State. Adultery is simply a word for hedonists. It maybe ok for your husband to run around, but I wouldn't be at all happy about it.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

You make the mistake of assuming its A) think its bad, and B) think its great.

Some cultures just don't see it as a big deal. Some consider looking at others adultury. Some consider only actual sex adultury.

Whats more, its condescending and rude to put 'marriage' in quotes like that. My marriage is in no way less than yours simply because I don't believe in your preferred religion.

[magie19475]

There is a separation between Church and State. From what I understand the State is still deciding what it is considering to do. State sanctioned 'marriages' between homosexuals are not legal completely across the United States at the moment. There are religions who recognize and bless these unions. The religions who don't are separate which is why the quotations.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

Marriage is marriage, whether you LIKE it or condone it or not. There are no air-quotes with marriage. It either is, or it isn't, and as the US is not a theocracy, and we are based on individual freedoms and equality in treatment in all government sanctioned things, gay marriage is just as viable as 'straight' marriage.

And the state Cali is in, with 'viable' gay marriages while still maintaining it isn't legal is ridiculous, to be blunt.

[magie19475]

Hi D.Chinchilla. You are entitled to your opinion and view. I have the right as an American to worship and believe as I believe to be right, and to uphold the Holy Bible. The Bible does not support the blanket acceptance of homosexuality. Homosexuality is a way of this world which the courts will ultimately decide what it will do or not do. I also believe and uphold the U.S.A. Constitution so the matter has to be argued in the courts.

[magie19475]

Many other faiths - conservative in their view - believe the same way. I would be moderate to conservative in my view. I am not going to be bullied to accept something I believe to be against what my God's view would be - that He would not approve of - what the overall tone of the Bible teaches - and what my Church affirms. What the State does is what the courts decide to do. Do I hate someone who is homosexual who gets married by the State - no.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

Giving you scriptures from your own holy text is bullying...?

I just posted your slavery scriptures, new and old testiment. Denying something that is obvious does not bode well... because it is the same as lying. And what is our initial topic?  Trusting liars with power... be it political, or spiritual.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

The Bible does accept slavery, in the old AND new testiments.

Leviticus 25, 44 to 46

Luke 12, 47 to 48

Ephesians 6, 5

Exodus 21, 2 to 11

I especially love this last one, how it describes hostaging a slaves wife (& kids), and giving the slave the choice of freedom without his family, or lifetime slavery with them.

When your holy text has descriptions so inhumane as this, I really couldn't give a rats ass what it or you think about the 'bad' homosexuals.

[magie19475]

Fine. I'm going to look all of this up.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

You do that.

And you might want to keep in mind... if you don't know your own scriptures very well, how can you really live a Christian life? The answer is, you can't. You can sure make it up as you go along though.

Let me know when you're ready to explain why slavery is okay, but gay men wanting a family isn't.

[CloeBuckingham]

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts." (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

[DeadlyChinchilla]

I think you failed to realize that, when we're addressing Sanfords faith, we do so because it is relevant to HIM. It is HIS own standard. This does not equate his standard with being the "best" or "only" standard. He chooses to live as a Christian, and thats fine... but he'll be judged by those ideals he fails to live up to, by his standard. Other people have no reason to live by Christian standards, as there are many other options.

[magie19475]

Hi D.Chinchilla. If you read my previous posts I did not make the main point to be of his adultery, but the possible living it up at the public's expense. There would be an investigation in order to see if he did do this - costly to the public no doubt once again - and I think he should resign due to that if he did, and for the fact of him simply disappearing where nobody knew how to reach him.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

Yes, we already covered that, and I quite agreed with you on the public funding issue. Then you changed the topic to why your religious view on adultery was the only right one, and how you cherry pick your own holy text to be able to justify your positions, be it adultery or slavery. Can't suddenly revert now.

[magie19475]

My topic change was in relation to CloeBuckingham who asserted my faith and belief didn't hold water in relation to the base tendencies or nature of mortals. According to my faith, the Bible and my Church it would be the only right view. I cannot assert something that would be a lie or promote something that is hedonistic as ok.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

Also, where you say "hedonistic," most other people simply say "natural." You can pretty your opinion up with judgemental terms, but it doesn't save you from the fact that most all mammals show homosexual tendencies.

You might get "bullied" less if you used less controntational terms. "Hedonistic" is insulting, and I'd wager you know it.

[magie19475]

Hedonism: Definition: 1. seeking of pleasure: a devotion, especially a self indulgent one, to pleasure and happiness as a way of life 2. philosophy of pleasure: a philosophical doctrine that holds that pleasure is the highest good or the source of moral values. Encarta. How is saying or reflecting what is true insulting.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

LOL! *thats* what you went to look up? Not the scriptures, not the words of Jesus... but the definition of hedonism? Oh, honestly now...

The insult is in your obvious intent, not in a dictionary. I can make the nices compliment an insult by presenting it as such. You have a "right v wrong" presentation to your argument, and "hedonistic" wasn't the good representation.

I didn't want to get into a religious debate here... but why can't you just be honest?

[magie19475]

We agree to disagree.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

No, we really don't.

Look up the scriptures I gave you. LEARN about your own holy text. Know what it says, not just what you want it to mean. If your faith is so weak that you can't know your own holy text, then its no wonder you consider people quoting your own scriptures to be "bullying."

If you don't understand or know your own text, don't DEFEND it as if you're an authority. Belief alone is not enough.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

Those who are religious go to a church. I didn't, many people don't.

As US citizens, we ALL go to the local courthouse to fill out a marriage certificate filing. This is a notification to the state that your status is changing, for use in legal rights, benefits, taxes, etc.

Marriage is not, and has never been, simply a church function. This is why the church cannot control who is allowed to marry now. Adultury means different things to different cultures.

[magie19475]

To explain further: Neither. According to my faith I would remain reserved - neutral - and not vote.

[CloeBuckingham]

So you would not vote for an adulterer who promised to ban late term abortions in Kansas? Hmm.... What would the pope say.

Serving in office is a burden. Look how presidents age in office. Why not punish the politician for his adultery with that burden?

[DeadlyChinchilla]

Yes, lets 'punish' people with money, benefits, and power. That'll show'em.

You're picking individualistic issues. I don't vote JUST on gay marriage or abortion. I vote on the package. I don't always agree with everything a politician stands for. As abortion and gay marriage are social issues, not legal or criminal ones, I'd prefer they not go into them at all.

And sorry if this is blunt, but to me the pope is just a guy with a funny hat.

[CloeBuckingham]

I was just giving a simple example. I vote for the package too. But for me the package is mainly about the politician getting the results I want. His or her personal life is largely secondary.

When Clinton cheated on Hillary, I was concerned that he committed perjury, and I felt sorry for his wife, but this is HER problem and HER battle, not mine.

But Clinton's trade negotiations with Japan were of concern to me. He was always bullying Japan.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

Right on this one. I maintain they shouldn't even have asked him about his affair to start with. Its not our business, to start. Second, they asked him a question which forced him to admit to adultery (a very difficult, familial harsh thing) or lie. Those were really his only options at that point. The question should never have even been asked.

Sort of like how its nobodies business to ask a woman if she's had an abortion. Or how its nobodies business if two gay people marry.

[magie19475]

As a Catholic we are not to support politicians who promote abortion - or abortion on demand. Christians are to follow the commandments. Marriage is considered a sacrament in the Catholic Church. The Bible teaches that you can judge a tree by it's fruit. Christians are taught to not support hedonistic people.

[CloeBuckingham]

If you care about abortion, then vote for the politician who is against it irrespective of his (or her) personal life.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

Sorry, but I actually put thought into my vote. Simply checking the "I agree" box is not enough. If I *know* someone is dishonest, has commited adultery against his own code, and did so on someone elses tab (taxpayers), I will certainly vote for someone else, even if on singular issues we disagree.

A dishonest politician is not one you can trust to keep his word in the first place, so agreeing with him is pointless.

[CloeBuckingham]

But weren't all the great politicians dishonest? Except maybe Abe Lincoln.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

Every man alive is dishonest in certain ways. We all tell white lies. "I'm fine today." "No thanks, I really don't want a second helping."

However, the calibre of the lie must be taken into account. "I didn't kill that girl." "I wasn't the driver." "I didn't take those drugs." "I'm a dedicated family man."

My point is, there is a point where a line is crossed from unharmful to harmful. Those who lie and act to harm others cannot be trusted with power.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

You're not going to find a politician who is "family-less." And the use of family members in politics is quite scummy, in most ways.

I didn't say anything about taxes, not sure why you're bringing those up specifically. What I do know is that governors have quite the benefits package. If he's taking long trips to see his girls, thats his choice, but he better do it on his own dime. Its the distinction that must be made. Abuse of funding is a rife problem among our politics.

[magie19475]

You forgot about Ralph Nader. He is unmarried, and does not have a family. He was HONEST and said that he doesn't have time for a wife.

[CloeBuckingham]

Ed Koch never married or had children. Though he at times denied it, he was probably gay. But there is no evidence he ever had sex with a man, so perhaps he was chaste. Who knows? Who cares? Cutting crime, improving education, cutting taxes. I care about these things.

Bloomberg has a governor's mansion, which he refuses to use, and a governor's salary, which he refuses to take. Now that's my kind of governor. A true philanthropist.

[DeadlyChinchilla]

You will find those few people without family, but they are the exception, not the rule.

I would share your sentiment, if I didn't know Bloomberg was a millionaire to start with. He can afford to look charitable and refuse a mansion and salary. Can you? I certainly couldn't afford to be such a "philanthropist." I do like eating daily, but I suppose thats my own failure.

[CloeBuckingham]

I care about results. If I have a choice between two governors, one who has affairs but gets good results, and another who does not have affairs but does not get good results, I prefer the one who gets good results.

I don't know why you care about other people's personal choices. Do you hate freedom? If you are a Christian, you know that unless there is freedom of choice, morality is meaningless.

[magie19475]

As you are validating a hedonistic view - all of the hedonists would agree. If you don't mind paying him to jet all over, eat lobster, sit on the beach, have choice rooms - and then get paid his salary as well - fine. I would rather give it to GM. I think I would get more return. You know that this would help Obama to win again in 2012 so it is ok by you to not be too concerned about Sanford.

[CloeBuckingham]

I am not validating hedonism, because I don't vote for politicians because they are hedonistic. I vote for them, because they get results.

Who said anything about using public funds to bankroll Sanford's trip to Argentina? You are putting words in my mouth. Most successful people never get to take all their holidays. They have months and months of back holidays that the eventually lose.

[Joe402]

lmao I knew you'd pull the "b-b-b-but Clinton!" card. I don't really care if he cheats on his wife but the thing that makes this for me is the hypocrite factor.

Sanford:"Gay people will literally destroy families and society so no gay marriage/civil rights for them sanctity of marriage etc."

Sanford today:"watch me as I destroy the sanctity of marriage."

[CloeBuckingham]

I support gay marriage, and it is great to see what a hypocrite these "holier than thou" politicians reveal themselves to be.

However, the comparison with Clinton is unfortunate. Clinton was not impeached for infidelity. Clinton was impeached for perjury. In Paula Jones vs. William J. Clinton, Clinton testified under oath that he did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky. He lied about a fact that was material to that case, namely his long history of marital infidelity.

[Joe402]

What really surprised me is that he was cheating with another woman. A republican not caught in a gay affair what a miracle.

[CloeBuckingham]

Or maybe she is just post operative?

[magie19475]

Hi CloeBuckingham. A correction. Former President Clinton was not sucessfully impeached, but served his full term in office. He was tried - a costly event I have to say - for perjury in relation mostly to his adultery.

[CloeBuckingham]

Yes, it was perjury because Clinton lied in court. If it were only an affair, I don't think there would have been impeachment.

The cost of his impeachment was NOTHING compared to the stimulus package. Just remove a whole lot of zeros.

[MysteryManoLove]

I havn't seen the pictures of how hot she is so I don't know if I would cheat on my hypothetical wife for or not. You are right though, cheating is not a party specific issue, it's more of a biological and psychological one.

[CloeBuckingham]

It is normal for men to want to have sex with women in their 20s and early 30s. That is the drive that enables procreation. Men who only want to have sex with women in their 40s, 50s, 60s, etc., will never procreate. There is no biological reason to have such an attraction.

[MysteryManoLove]

Exactly, we only want them hot and young unless it's the only option strait out of high school to go after a couger LOL!

[zndprophet]

At least it was just a regular affair between a man & a woman this time. Usually when repubs cheat-it's men or boys.

if you don't like this bias-remember it next time a dem gets caught-and don't make a big deal out of it. You CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

We arent the ones who get outraged over this sort of stuff. We think it's sleazy, we think it's dishonest-but we don't act like its this HUGE DEAL.

One or the other-its a big deal, or its not-for both sides, no double standards.

[CloeBuckingham]

I don't see that there is a relation between a man's political life and his personal life. There were many great men who have cheated, from Julius Caesar to Francois Mitterrand. Whatever you think of him, Richard Nixon never cheated. LOL!

[magie19475]

I believe there is a connection between a man's political and personal life. If they run as a public servant, and present themselves a certain way to get elected, and stand on certain values or standards I think it matters. It matters to me the character of someone, or whether it costs the public A LOT of money to investigate what they lie and cover up. Would I care if this public servant used public funds to pay for his excursion out of the country or to be paid his salary while missing - YES.

[CloeBuckingham]

In our everyday lives, the personal and the professional are separate. Would you want our personal dirty laundry aired at work or in public? I think that everyone deserves to be given privacy.

[magie19475]

Not as a public servant.

[CloeBuckingham]

Teachers, firemen, police, etc., are also public servants.

[zndprophet]

I say just don't run on a family value ticket and then do something like this. Thats why its an even bigger problem when republicans do it. Dems dont get elected on that-yet republicans who try to claim moral high ground are just as bad-which makes them worse.

We don't elect dems because we think they'll keep their dicks in their pants-we elect them because we think they have a more practical way of getting things done.

[j3znz]

he admited to the infidelity but right after

a lot of denied like that he just was miss, that he was hiking and other stuff.

[CloeBuckingham]

If he was hiking, or not hiking, that's his business. The state assembly was out of session. It was Father's Day weekend. And he chose to be with his mistress than with his wife and four sons.

[bathswife]

To call the media biased because the Governor of SC called a news conference and admitted to having an affair is just absurd. He called the news conference.

As a Democrat I was FURIOUS when Clinton lied about his affair. I am surprised so many Republicans are so upset over this latest political scandal and so quick to defend any Republican no matter what they do. I certainly didn't defend Clinton. He, Edwards & all of them both Republican and Democrats are slimeballs for their actions.

[capone70]

Politicians are generally slimeballs. It's the nature of the beast, and it's been that way since the begining of time. Power and greed corrupt from both sides of the political divide. To think otherwise is really naive.

[CloeBuckingham]

The point was not about Clinton lying about an affair but perjuring himself in Paula Jones vs. William J. Clinton.

[capone70]

Hmmm. Not sure if I agree with you here. Yes, the media is slanted; no question and no doubt. But I'd need to see proof they knew about Edwards' affair before the Enquirer to believe this. The media is all about titilation and sensation; completely bi-partisan there. ANYONE who has an affair and gets discovered is fair game by them. Eliot Spitzer, the former governor of NY is Democrat, and the media covered that like flys on a picnic sandwich.

[PropagandaBuster]

The proof you seek, you missed as it is obvious by your comment you were not politically aware when the John Edwards sex story happened. The story was first reported by the National Enquirer in print and during interviews on talk radio. After a week or so of this exposure, the so-called main stream media had no choice put to report the story.

[capone70]

Well, politically aware I guess is relative. I was abreast of American politics at the time since I was in the US during and up to the election. Don't get me wrong; I am absolutely agreeing there is media bias. Obama skips a stone across a lake and the next day they report he walks on water. But from web sources I found, the Enq brok the story on 10/10/07, then the AP reported on it on 10/11/07 and it was in the news from that point on.

[CloeBuckingham]

Wonderful point, PB. It's absurd that it should take a week for the mainstream media to pick up on John Edwards infidelity.

Frankly, I don't care whom he sleeps with. I do care about shyster like Edwards driving up insurance costs with frivolous lawsuits.

[jbranstetter04]

Nothing could be finer than to be in Carolina, in the morrrrrrning. Nice song pick, except, who's Carolina? Is she his mistress?

[PropagandaBuster]

"South Carolina." The mistress is Maria Chapur.

[lancechamplain]

It goes like this: Nothin' could be finer than my dick in her vaginer in the mornin' Nothin' could be sweeter then her lips

around my.........Whoa! You should'nt make fun of someones accent Tone. Hey youse guys lets go git a hamboiguh.

[PropagandaBuster]

Hamboiguher

[NoGuff]

Very good points, Tony.

Liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds or shame.

[SunBeamsan]

... I guess they've forgotten about

"I did not have sexual relations with that women"

Left right?

Hmmm

Both seem to have dumped America to hell in a hand basket.