The Left" and personal behaviour?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DasBoot

Moderator
I'm gonna try this again BUT stay on course this time!:rolleyes:
Bluewater....bear with me!:)
My premise is that Democrats and their ilk are far more accepting of actions most people inherently consider wrong, unacceptable, whatever.
I have chosen a few scenarios that, depending on your view, will reveal how you perceive such behaviour.
A few of these were high profile cases involving Democrats and in each case, Democrats rallied behind the person.
These questions were obviously ignored in the previous thread.
Feel free to add any with Republicans....BUT.....
ADDRESS THE QUESTION FIRST :
DO YOU SUPPORT THE ACTIONS PRESENTED?
YES OR NO .....AND WHY!
None of this "it's none of my business" BS or evasive answers!
This is VERY straight forward.
Oh yeah, it would be nice to know your political affiliation also, although it is geared to Democrats/Libertarians/etc.

1)Congresswoman McKinney hitting a police officer?
2)Marrion Barry in a hotel w/a hooker, smoking crack?
3)A standing president having extra-marital sex in the White House(not the sleeping areas).
4)Cheating on your spouse for no other reason than that your bored and want something new?
5)A kid in class coming in and putting his feet up on the teachers desk, refusing repeated requests by the teacher to take them down?

HAPPY 4th of JULY!
 
yer killin' me; check the passage of Rights-infringment laws

1) Hitting cops; bad. No, criminal.

2) Crack-head mayor (since I was living there at that time); bad. No, criminal.

3) Anyone screwing on 'company' time (except pros, ay? For you Nevadans :D ); bad; fire 'em. Seriously.

4) Been there done that; ask my first wife. I call it "learning the hard way"; bad.

5) Obviously Democrats for (single?) parents; bad. Spank the deviant.
That's right, spanking in schools.

I voted for George McGovern AND George Bush; maybe it's just I like that name?
 
You mean guys like Randy "Duke" Cunnigham who took bribes from a defense contractor forcing the Pentagon to buy equipment it didnt want, and is currently doing time in federal prison? How about personal responsibility and the right?

Newt Gingrich and extramarital affairs ?

Rush Limbaugh - drug abuser, and how many divorces has he had?

Rudy Gulliani and his extramarital affair

Bob Packwood, Bobb Barr

Even Bob Dole and Ronald Reagan have committed the "sin"

The right doesnt have a monopoly on morality.......
 
DasBoot,
I notice that you were very particular about which personal behaviors you chose in order to help you lambast "the left and their ilk".
No mention of tele-evangelists cheating on their wives. No mention of corrupt congressmen taking bribes or laundering money. No mention of white collar criminals defrauding their shareholders and employees. No mention of people who physically assault others because of their race, religion, sexual orientation... Yes, very selective....

I also can't help but notice that you automatically reject all 'none of my business' answers as "BS". I can only conclude that you consider *everybody's* moral behavior "your business" regardless of whether or not it affects others. People like yourself are antiethical to the concept of freedom. Your version: You are free to do whatever I approve of. :rolleyes:
Unfortunately, this renders your quiz meaningless, since in many of these cases "none of my business" is a valid answer.
 
A prominent Republican fund-raiser who once said former President Bill Clinton was "a lawbreaker and a terrible example to our nation's young people" pleaded guilty yesterday in Baltimore Circuit Court to production of child pornography.

Richard Anthony Delgaudio, who was sentenced to two years' probation before judgment, admitted to taking lewd photographs of a 16-year-old girl he met in East Baltimore's Patterson Park in 2001. In some of the photos, he was engaged in sex with her, court records show.

Delgaudio, 50, of Burke, Va., is a frequent talk-radio guest and national figure in conservative politics. He is president of the Legal Affairs Council, a group that helped pay the legal bills of former Reagan administration officials Oliver L. North and Caspar W. Weinberger after they were charged in connection with the Iran-contra affair.
In his pornography case, there was additional evidence that Delgaudio took erotic images of at least one other, younger teen-ager, but that evidence was not admissible in court because police improperly stopped and searched Delgaudio, a judge ruled.



Rep. Sue Myrick?(R-NC-9) describes herself as a "devout Christian." In 1989, Myrick was running for a second term as Charlotte mayor when news reports revealed that she committed adultery with a married man in 1973. Myrick admitted the adultery and won reelection.?

J.C. Watts?(R-OK-4). Has spent years covering up his out-of-wedlock children.

I beleive even George Will has a divorce in his record column........
 
Perhaps I'm "old-fashioned", even though I'm a middle-aged baby boomer who grew up in the turbulent 60's and raised by parents who you could consider politically independent and middle-of-the-road. Significantly most of my formative years have been spent in California. With that said...

1)Congresswoman McKinney hitting a police officer?
No. Security procedures where you work, government or not, are there for a reason. If policy allows you to bypass checkpoints with a special badge and today you forgot it, expect to be challenged by security teams as that's their job. Hitting an officer because you feel insulted by your own stupidity only shows a self-centered, egocentric mindset.

2)Marrion Barry in a hotel w/a hooker, smoking crack?
No. It used to be bad enough for a politician caught with a hooker anywhere that he could consider his political career over. But to be caught smoking crack (or other illicit drugs) should be prima facia evidence that the person is unfit to hold public office. It's a sad statement on public morals & standards when he actually gets re-elected afterwards.

3)A standing president having extra-marital sex in the White House(not the sleeping areas).
No. Enough has been written about JFK's adventures to make one wonder how many presidents have engaged in affairs during their White House years. Self-discipline is one way to judge the maturity and ability to commit one's self to a principle, such as marital monogamy, and frequent breaches shows a weakness of character. Given stats on how many spouses (men & women) cheat on each other it shouldn't be too surprising. Should the First Lady come out and say "Look, he's a man and I'm not so naive to think that he'll resist every temptation thrown at him. That's just reality. It's a passing moment and it's over. Let's move on." it would defuse the whole thing.

4)Cheating on your spouse for no other reason than that your bored and want something new?
No. I've know a few people, both men and women, who've done this in and out of marriage. I think it's disrespectful to the other person in the relationship when one party "cheats" on the other. If both parties know about it and can live with it, then that's their right.

5)A kid in class coming in and putting his feet up on the teachers desk, refusing repeated requests by the teacher to take them down?
No. Part of growing up is learning to have some respect for authority -- parents, teachers, police, etc. -- and learning to follow the rules of conduct that are either written or expected. We must reinforce these concepts with our children and see to it they know how to behave in polite society. Part of being an adolescent is challenging authority and attempting to "be adult" and it is the duty of adults to enforce the discipline lessons until some maturity takes seed.
 
BillCa,
Your answer to #4 raises an interesting point, one that I think would be quite revealing....

If both parties know about it and can live with it, then that's their right.
Click to expand...

A hypothetical for DasBoot to answer:

You are aware that your next-door neighbors are 'swingers'. That is, they have a mutual agreement to have extra-marital sex. Do you approve? You have specifically disallowed "none of my business" as a valid answer. If you do not approve, what, specifically, do you do to correct this immoral behavior?
'Nothing' is not an acceptable answer. By your own admission you have an obligation to your neighbors to protect them from immorality.
Not correcting this is tantamount to approval.

/gleefully anticipating your response...
 
The right doesnt have a monopoly on morality.......
Click to expand...

No, but the left does have a corner on the market for immorality.

Seriously, saying "he did it too" is not a defense. It only brings in to question those particular people, not conservatism's position. It does not bring into light their personal moral repercussions afterwards, nor how legitimate their presented beliefs are in the first place. If anything it only indicates how much the leftist view of situational ethics and "if it feels good do it" has polluted our society.

With that in mind, please keep posting examples of those who have bought into the leftist position.
 
It only brings in to question those particular people, not conservatism's position.
Click to expand...
Yet individual behavior does reflect on liberalism's position? Blatant double-standard.

Just so's I've got this straight: Your position is that all immoral and unethical behavior is the fault of liberalism, regardless of who has committed the behavior. Correct?

Whatever happened to 'personal responsibility'?
 
Sorry, no. Leftism promotes certain positions and tenets and world views. When people who claim to be leftists follow those positions it is hardly "individual behavior". OTOH, when a relatively small number of people go AGAINST the positions they claim to support THAT is individual behavior indicative of nothing but the individual in question(and then only regarding a specific event).

It is also strongly indicative of a leftist influence in this context. Personally speaking, I did things when younger that I knew were wrong. The after-affects were among the things that solidly cemented me on the right: The difference between my reaction to having done something I knew was wrong vs the reactions of people I knew who did not see their same actions as being any big deal. Even when their actions hurt others and wrecked homes. That, the negative reaction, was the fault of those who had such a "Victorian" mindset...

Fact was it was our fault for doing wrong, but leftism, the world, did not recognize it. Conservatism did. I did, even as I followed along with it in, what? Rebellion? Stupidity? Desire for cheap thrills? Whatever. So I could be on that list as an example. But it shows only that I bought the leftist line for a while and did wrong, not that conservatives are all somehow hypocrites.

BTW, let's get the terms right: Liberalism: To favor maximum liberty in the context of the Founders. Classical Liberals. What we are discussing here is leftism. Of the socialist and humanist stripe. Has nothing to do with real liberalism, which is just a good word the left co-opted decades ago to lend credibility to their agenda. All they really did was soil the word...
 
Waiting to go out for the 4th. Just a general comment. I don't mind debating political philosophy but threads like this are just mindless tantrums that are poorly written.

DasBoot, if you have something deep to say about your views of morality - please share them, otherwise - it's a waste of electrons with your continual little rants. I hear Iran has a very conservative society regarding social issues and behavior - that might be an ideal society for you. :mad:
 
DasBoot,

The options for answers to the questions do not answer anything. "DO YOU SUPPORT THE ACTIONS PRESENTED? YES OR NO .....AND WHY!"

What does it mean to "support the actions?"

Do I 'advocate' the actions listed? No, and I doubt you could find many (any?) who would.

Do I 'condemn' the actions listed? That's a whole different set of answers.

Eghad,
Who could forget Jimmy Swaggart.....
Click to expand...
Conservatives grovel so much more piteously when they're caught. :D
 
Another strawman. Using "conservative" in the context of another society. They have their beliefs(which have little relevence to ours), which obviously have problems. If anything this only highlights how holding to failure in the light of reality is pointless, ie leftism in general.

Also, can you please put an exact value on the wasted electrons? I see this from you a lot and, really, if you don't know what they are worth then why try and silence positions you don't agree with by claiming some nebulous value none of us can even quantify?

Just asking, ya know...
 
Do I 'advocate' the actions listed? No, and I doubt you could find many (any?) who would.
Click to expand...

Advocate screwing around and using drugs and smacking a cop, adultery and harrassing a teacher...? I can go up town right now and find gobs who support one or more of those because they see no moral problem with it. THAT is the whole point of the question. THAT is the position of leftism, that there is no moral absolute. There are millions of people who agree with such a position and I know a lot of them and I don't see how you can seriously claim you don't.
 
1)Congresswoman McKinney hitting a police officer?
2)Marrion Barry in a hotel w/a hooker, smoking crack?
3)A standing president having extra-marital sex in the White House(not the sleeping areas).
4)Cheating on your spouse for no other reason than that your bored and want something new?
5)A kid in class coming in and putting his feet up on the teachers desk, refusing repeated requests by the teacher to take them down?
Click to expand...

1. No, Not just McKinney, but anyone hitting a police officer.
2. No, I have no use for anyone using drugs. I don't care how impoverished they are, or what bad things in their life they care to blaim their drug use on.
3. No, It doesn't matter if it was in the White House or a Motel 6, or if he is the president or not.
4. No, See number 3.
5. No, Corporal punishment should be brought back in the school system. The feel good, Dr Spock bs has deluted parenting to the point that parents can't or won't use real punishment to mold and shape their kids into responsible adults. Yes, I believe there is a difference between punishment and abuse, often the line is blurred by the "feel good" crowd.
 
2A,

The problem I have with DasBoot's question is that I don't know exactly what he meant by the word 'support.' I substituted the words 'advocate' (meant in the sense of promoting something) and 'condemn' (meant in the sense of disapproving of something) because I thought they were more precise and demonstrated how the question could be misinterpreted; apparently, I was wrong.
There are millions of people who agree with such a position and I know a lot of them and I don't see how you can seriously claim you don't.
Click to expand...
You are correct that a lot of people would condone (meant in the sense of accepting or agreeing with something) the actions DasBoot listed. But I stand by my statement about advocating (promoting) those actions. Even the wackiest leftist I have ever encountered did not say "Hey, man, you should go out and hit a cop, smoke crack with a hooker, have sex at work, or screw around on your wife."
 
Red state , Blue state, republican or democrate, It's all just a ruse. Puppets of the same master. The real enemy of freedom is the Federal Reserve
 
But isn't a leftist advocating such actions when he goes out and actually does it himself? Isn't "condoning" such an action passive advocacy? And isn't THAT very much leftist philosophy? And, again, isn't that the point of dasboot's questions?

garryc, we're not talking about parties, we're talking about actual beliefs and social views. I think we can mostly all agree that A) The Parties don't automatically reflect right or left, and B) that the Fed is a whole other can-o-worms. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top