At first I didn't see what the big deal was, but I didn't realize he's married, so yeah, obviously a no-no. Really though, it seems beyond stupid to do something like that over such a public website.
posted
Noticed this too. But to be fair, I bet the Democrats have more than their fair share of infidelities that have simply not been found out.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Gawker did that? I'm surprised people are still visiting that site after the awful new redesign.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to go that route but it's a complete guesswork claim. I am a BROKEN RECORD on this but there's no current equivalence. For some reason that I am not even going to bother guessing, it's always the morals n' values republicans who get all the juiciest sex scandals and most of the numberage.
Tangential: the anti-gay crusaders get most of the scandals where they're porking or propositioning men or boys. There might be a more coherent psychological explanation for this one.
but WHATEVER
he was using his real name, and trolling for a lay on craigslist. I think the only thing noteworthy about this is that he is dumber than a sack of other, slightly dumber congresspeople.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Noticed this too. But to be fair, I bet the Democrats have more than their fair share of infidelities that have simply not been found out.
And we just happen to only keep finding out about Republicans?
I'm sure there are infidelities on the Democrat side. I do think it's odd that it always seems to come out on the other side though.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: So Gawker did that? I'm surprised people are still visiting that site after the awful new redesign.
good notch in the belt for gawker. story break to resignation in one day.
The resignation letter is also supremely gutless, with him saying that he is resigning due to this being a 'distraction.'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Noticed this too. But to be fair, I bet the Democrats have more than their fair share of infidelities that have simply not been found out.
And we just happen to only keep finding out about Republicans?
I'm sure there are infidelities on the Democrat side. I do think it's odd that it always seems to come out on the other side though.
Remember Mr. Edwards? Mr. Clinton?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: So Gawker did that? I'm surprised people are still visiting that site after the awful new redesign.
I thought the same thing.
I'm excited though- if they just dig in their heels and keep it, I won't waste so much time there and on Jezebel.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
[weird thought] News like this makes me feel more and more like marriage is a bizarre social construct that could be done away with. The wedding rings remind me of branding cattle, like you own the other person. People should be allowed to change as they grow as human beings. Life-time relationships don't seem to encourage that. [/thinking out loud]
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Noticed this too. But to be fair, I bet the Democrats have more than their fair share of infidelities that have simply not been found out.
And we just happen to only keep finding out about Republicans?
I'm sure there are infidelities on the Democrat side. I do think it's odd that it always seems to come out on the other side though.
Remember Mr. Edwards? Mr. Clinton?
Edwards I'll give you, that was recent. But Clinton was like 15 years ago. In fact, the reason you hear Clinton's name bandied about so much in connection with sex scandals is because Republicans don't really have anyone else to talk about, else they'd harp on it more. In the last decade it's been GOP sex scandals all day all the time.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: [weird thought] News like this makes me feel more and more like marriage is a bizarre social construct that could be done away with. The wedding rings remind me of branding cattle, like you own the other person. People should be allowed to change as they grow as human beings. Life-time relationships don't seem to encourage that. [/thinking out loud]
I think that makes less sense if you look at it from the point of view of raising kids in a stable environment. Sometimes divorce is for the better. It was for my parents. But sometimes parents need to work out their issues.
The idea that marriage is no big deal and that you should get married on a whim and can escape a marriage on a whim is, for me, a bad move on the evolution of coupling.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I kept not opening this thread because I thought it had spoilers about the latest episode of House.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I dunno if I want to see the new episodes yet or not, the very blatant Mary Sue on the show is very off putting.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Noticed this too. But to be fair, I bet the Democrats have more than their fair share of infidelities that have simply not been found out.
And we just happen to only keep finding out about Republicans?
I'm sure there are infidelities on the Democrat side. I do think it's odd that it always seems to come out on the other side though.
Remember Mr. Edwards? Mr. Clinton?
Edwards I'll give you, that was recent. But Clinton was like 15 years ago. In fact, the reason you hear Clinton's name bandied about so much in connection with sex scandals is because Republicans don't really have anyone else to talk about, else they'd harp on it more. In the last decade it's been GOP sex scandals all day all the time.
Spitzer too.
But yeah, I don't have a running tally in my head, but I think there has been more news of Republican infidelities than Democrats.
Even then I don't think it should matter which party's members do it more often. I don't really care about who my representative or senator sleeps with unless they make it an issue that defines them. That's what bothers me. When members of a party claim that they defend family values and stand for the sanctity of marriage yet do a great job undermining both "family values" and marriage. If we didn't let personal lives be a political issue, I'd be happier. I care about what you do, not who you do.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Noticed this too. But to be fair, I bet the Democrats have more than their fair share of infidelities that have simply not been found out.
And we just happen to only keep finding out about Republicans?
I'm sure there are infidelities on the Democrat side. I do think it's odd that it always seems to come out on the other side though.
Remember Mr. Edwards? Mr. Clinton?
Edwards I'll give you, that was recent. But Clinton was like 15 years ago. In fact, the reason you hear Clinton's name bandied about so much in connection with sex scandals is because Republicans don't really have anyone else to talk about, else they'd harp on it more. In the last decade it's been GOP sex scandals all day all the time.
Maybe Democrats like to go for quality over quantity. I'll grant you though that it seems Republicans in the last 10 years have been outpacing the Democrats something awful.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
here's some numbers for folks who want to debate dems vs reps.
Thanks for that. I hadn't realized there were so many Democrats, and the quality vs. quantity issue seems to be something, though, I'm not sure how much weight I give that.
I think there's also the fact that one is the self-anointed protector of family values, and they're the ones who have the higher quantity. That's what gets me so much.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Noticed this too. But to be fair, I bet the Democrats have more than their fair share of infidelities that have simply not been found out.
Of course there are, but Democrats don't run on family values nearly so much. The hypocrisy is what is being mocked, not the actual action.
For example. When a Democrat comes out of the closet, the proper response is "Good." When an anti-SSM Republican is caught having airport bathroom sex with a dude, the proper response is "haw haw."
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
here's some numbers for folks who want to debate dems vs reps.
Is there a list which includes cases like ted haggard, or does it stick straight to the elected official scandals?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
here's some numbers for folks who want to debate dems vs reps.
Thanks for that. I hadn't realized there were so many Democrats, and the quality vs. quantity issue seems to be something, though, I'm not sure how much weight I give that.
I think there's also the fact that one is the self-anointed protector of family values, and they're the ones who have the higher quantity. That's what gets me so much.
That's not what gets ME so much. What gets ME is how GAY so many of these Republicans are. It's inexplicable.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Noticed this too. But to be fair, I bet the Democrats have more than their fair share of infidelities that have simply not been found out.
The Democrats don't tend to run on "family values" and therefore are not really as vulnerable to sex scandals. Their weakpoint is finance.
The Republicans tend to bring this stuff down on themselves.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: The Democrats...are not really as vulnerable to sex scandals.
The article mentions, though, that Democrats tend to mess around with interns and staffers more, which, to most people, is different than messing around with some random person.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
here's some numbers for folks who want to debate dems vs reps.
Thanks for that. I hadn't realized there were so many Democrats, and the quality vs. quantity issue seems to be something, though, I'm not sure how much weight I give that.
I think there's also the fact that one is the self-anointed protector of family values, and they're the ones who have the higher quantity. That's what gets me so much.
That's not what gets ME so much. What gets ME is how GAY so many of these Republicans are. It's inexplicable.
You know the phrase. "The lady doth protest to much". Someone as a kid knows deep down he is different. he has feelings for other men. Feelinga he has been told are evil ,deranged, sick. He tries to suppress them. He lives in terror of others finding out so he tries to deflect suspicion by being even more anti gay than those around him.
It's so obvious when you listen to anti-gay crusaders. They act like homosexuality is so dangerously tempting that if it's not suppressed then every male will become gay and our species will die out. What kind of straight person every thinks this way? But the anti gay crusaders do have that temptation and since they have no healthy way to express that they act out in unhealthy ways.
How can we be surprised when they get caught with rent-boys or offering to perform oral sex on a cop in an airport bathroom?
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: The Democrats...are not really as vulnerable to sex scandals.
The article mentions, though, that Democrats tend to mess around with interns and staffers more, which, to most people, is different than messing around with some random person.
Sure but the public doesn't get as worked up over the Democrats infidelities. Clinton was popular with the majority even after his scandal broke. Because it really is the hypocracy more than the actual act that gets people.
If I go into a bar and have a few drinks its no big deal. But if I go around nagging people who drink and preaching against the evils of alcohol then get caught drinking in a bar, I am going to get an earful from those I have been nagging and I would deserve it.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I consider it considerably worse. On top of all the sex stuff, it's using power given them by the people to pressure dependents.
That's much worse.
I agree that sleeping with those under your authority is bad but again the Republicans go around preaching sexual morality and that is what gets them. They open themselves up to hypocrisy charges. The Democrats generally don't and the public doesn't really care about the sex but they love to see the self righteous brought low.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: [You know the phrase. "The lady doth protest to much". Someone as a kid knows deep down he is different. he has feelings for other men. Feelinga he has been told are evil ,deranged, sick. He tries to suppress them. He lives in terror of others finding out so he tries to deflect suspicion by being even more anti gay than those around him.
It's so obvious when you listen to anti-gay crusaders. They act like homosexuality is so dangerously tempting that if it's not suppressed then every male will become gay and our species will die out. What kind of straight person every thinks this way? But the anti gay crusaders do have that temptation and since they have no healthy way to express that they act out in unhealthy ways.
How can we be surprised when they get caught with rent-boys or offering to perform oral sex on a cop in an airport bathroom?
Yeah, but here's my question. Aren't conservative more likely to have been raised in more conservative households/churches/areas? How on earth would that population be more likely to be gay?
Actually, upon reflection, people from more liberal backgrounds are probably coming out as soon as they hit age 18 or so. They don't go into politics while still in the closet, or at least they are less likely to. The conservatively-raised gays are more likely go into politics without coming out of the closet first.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: [You know the phrase. "The lady doth protest to much". Someone as a kid knows deep down he is different. he has feelings for other men. Feelinga he has been told are evil ,deranged, sick. He tries to suppress them. He lives in terror of others finding out so he tries to deflect suspicion by being even more anti gay than those around him.
It's so obvious when you listen to anti-gay crusaders. They act like homosexuality is so dangerously tempting that if it's not suppressed then every male will become gay and our species will die out. What kind of straight person every thinks this way? But the anti gay crusaders do have that temptation and since they have no healthy way to express that they act out in unhealthy ways.
How can we be surprised when they get caught with rent-boys or offering to perform oral sex on a cop in an airport bathroom?
Yeah, but here's my question. Aren't conservative more likely to have been raised in more conservative households/churches/areas? How on earth would that population be more likely to be gay?
Actually, upon reflection, people from more liberal backgrounds are probably coming out as soon as they hit age 18 or so. They don't go into politics while still in the closet, or at least they are less likely to. The conservatively-raised gays are more likely go into politics without coming out of the closet first.
I doubt they are more likely to be gay. Although there is evidence that the more sons a women has the greater the odds of each successful male turning out gay. If conservatives have more kids than liberals then they would end up with more gay children.
Your second suggestion "The conservatively-raised gays are more likely go into politics without coming out of the closet first." Seems more likely. Plus as I pointed out becoming a morals crusader is very likely seen as a way to either deflect suspicion of moral failing or as a way to suppress desires that the individual feels are wrong.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I consider it considerably worse. On top of all the sex stuff, it's using power given them by the people to pressure dependents.
That or people who work closely together are more likely to end up in a relationship regardless of power differentials.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: [...people who work closely together are more likely to end up in a relationship regardless of power differentials.
That's Dave Chappelle's theory about the Clinton-Lewinsky situation. He thinks Clinton was too busy to find someone besides Lewinsky.
I still think Clinton deserves some slack. Lewinsky's stated reason for becoming a White House intern (in letters to her best friend) was to have sex with the President. It's not like he was the aggressor. Granted, he should/could have refused, but it's not like he was the instigator.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I wouldn't buy such a tawdry excuse from any grown-up much less the President. More understandable=/excuse.
ETA: And wow, what a tedious discussion that I hope won't go anywhere and I really ought not have contributed to-sorry HR!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What, did he trip or something?
I wouldn't buy such a tawdry excuse from any grown-up much less the President. More understandable=/excuse.
What, you have perfect willpower? Yeah right. Have some mercy. We all have our weaknesses. He didn't endanger the free world by getting him some.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What, did he trip or something?
I wouldn't buy such a tawdry excuse from any grown-up much less the President. More understandable=/excuse.
ETA: And wow, what a tedious discussion that I hope won't go anywhere and I really ought not have contributed to-sorry HR!
The only thing tedious is just how often Republicans get caught in sex scandals. It's got to the point where i almost assume that any conservative republican who mentions family values in a speech is going to go visit his mistress or rent boy as soon as his speech is over.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: It's got to the point where i almost assume that any conservative republican who mentions family values in a speech is going to go visit his mistress or rent boy as soon as his speech is over.
You know, that reminds me of that scene from "Grapes of Wrath" where the preacher talks about how he would always find a girl and have sex with her right after preaching a really fiery sermon. His desire was even stronger after the fieriest sermon.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I consider abuse of power to be worse than hypocrisy. Abuse of public power, given in trust from the people, to be even worse than that.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but I've found most (all?) people are hypocrites about something and usually many things, but abusing power is a choice that includes a victim. "Every man's death dimishes me" and so on, but picking a staffer to have sex with and abusing that, yes, sacred trust with which they are given, is particularly repulsive.
I am not as repusled by posers as I am by abusers.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
<ETA> Well, if coercion is involved, then yes, that would include a victim. More specifically, my question to you, katharina, is whether you think all relationships within this type of environment and structure constitutes an abuse of power.
posted
Hm. While I don't think either is particularly ethical, I think sleeping with a subordinate is more ethical than cheating on one's spouse (in general; obviously there are degrees to be found.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Abuse of Power is a bigger sin than Hypocrisy. Infidelity and lies are bad for a politician, but abuse of power is worse.
Hypocrisy, however, is a bigger laugh.
That is why hypocrites who swear to fight against the evils of adultery, homosexuality, and naughtiness are brought down more than power players who use their power to play the ladies.
We condemn both, but we are really snickering at only one.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I consider abuse of power to be worse than hypocrisy. Abuse of public power, given in trust from the people, to be even worse than that.
Both are bad but the hypocrisy of the self righteous is particularly bad. How dare they call me a deviant or pass laws against me when they are screwing rent-boys and keeping mistresses.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom, my assumption is that all of the above involve adultery.
Then in that case, adultery with a subordinate is worse than adultery with a random stranger, and adultery with a prostitute somewhere in the middle. *laugh*
A separate issue is whether or not the person has made a habit of condemning the behavior in which they've secretly engaged. This is especially relevant to political figures (politicians, pundits, etc.) because this condemnation can actually express itself as full-on legal suppression of the behavior, and in those scenarios I consider that a direct violation of their oath to the state.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pride isn't an accurate word for such a case, katharina. Not when they're passing laws against behavior they themselves engage in. It's both fair and appropriate to get very angry at someone who is hypocritical in such a fashion, because it's a pretty gross betrayal and abuse of power.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"This is worse because it affects ME" is not convincing. It would have been marginally more so without the umbrage over the adjective. That also doesn't account for cases where they do deeply disapprove of themselves, which I suspect is the majority.
Nope, direct abuse of position and sexual exploitation is still worse.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I consider enacting and advocating for law in a hypocritical manner to be a direct abuse of the position.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
