quote: July 2, 2004 — Jack Ryan, the Illinois Republican who abandoned his Senate bid amid a furor over sex club allegations, says the media's focus on candidates' personal sex lives serves no public purpose and is harmful to democracy.
quote: Ryan said he and his campaign advisers thought the controversy would die down quickly. "I was told by almost everyone I spoke to this is a two-day story, this is not a crusher for a campaign," he said. "The biggest reaction I got was, 'Is that all there is?' "
But Ryan's campaign collapsed a mere four days after the story broke.
"It turned out that the media in my view was not going to let me talk about the failure of the Great Society, and how do we improve life on the South Side of Chicago," Ryan said. "They wanted to talk about what's now public, these divorce records. And they were not going to let go."
quote: While the press, in its request to unseal the Ryans' court records, asserted that the public had a right to know about the candidate's personal life, Ryan said releasing the information serves no good public purpose. "What benefit has the public now derived from knowing this information? There is no allegation, as you know, of breaking any laws, no allegation of infidelity, no allegation of breaking any marriage vows," he said.
He said this sort of intrusion into candidates' personal lives will prevent qualified candidates from entering politics, and said it is "not good for American Democracy."
"I can't tell you how many calls I got in the last two weeks from people who said, 'I always thought about maybe going into public service. But not now, not, not after I've seen what's happened to you.' And so this cannot be the right standard now for entering into American politics," he told Stosssel.
quote: "Remember the worst that can be said about me is that I propositioned my wife — my wife! — in an inappropriate place," Ryan said.
I agree with Mr. Ryan, for the most part. Why not judge a candidate on his political ideas rather than his personal ones that, as far as I can tell, have no bearing on his fitness as a candidate?
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Character. We want a good politician (like that's likely).
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
(To Phanto)Why? The best analogy that I can think of is to sports. From the perspective of those who play sports with a man, who cares what kind of character that man has as long as he can score points? As long as he can do his job on the team well? Isn't it better to have someone who is an excellent catcher/quarterback/ball wacker than it is that they get along well with their wife?
Consider, in general, should prospective employers have the ability to ask people about their 'personal' lives when trying to make decisions as to how qualified a person is for employment? Of course not! I'm not hiring someone, as in voting for them, on the basis of how well they get along with their wife. I'm voting for them based on how well they can do their job.
[ July 23, 2004, 03:59 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Alexa, I'd just as soon skip the whole ordeal, rather than wait for the public to hopefully come to its senses.
Your response is kind of irritating to me because it kind of skips the question the article raises. You can really say the same thing about any injustice, can't you? 'I have faith people will eventually mature to the point that they will correct this injustice.' While, perhaps, true, it doesn't have any meaning in the here and now. We who live in the present should shoulder our responsibilites as thinking people and grapple with these issues rather than waiting for our descendants to solve them, don't you think? Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: As public servants, candidates are held at a different standard then the private sector
Why? If the standard makes for them being able to better do their job, then maybe it would work just as well in the private sector.
quote: However, you are talking about why YOU would or would not vote for someone, there are other people in a democracy who vote for other reasons. In a true representative democracy, it seems to me that those who wish to cast votes based on "moral behavior" have every right to cast their votes accordingly. Full disclosure is necessary for the voting public to vote according to their conscience.
I argue that there is no such right or that you have made the case that 'full disclosure' is necessary.
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
I think it boils down to trust. I have a hard time voting for someone that I don't trust to tell me the truth and act in good faith on my behalf.
Now, you might say that these two criteria are not related to a person's private life. I would claim that often, though surely not always, there is a correlation. The decision making process that someone uses in their private life probably does reflect the process that they'll use in their public life. If that decision making process led them to bad decisions in their private life, then it might lead them to poor decisions in their public life.
OK. I have been using "decisions" and "decision process" instead of "private sex life" until now. I think it is up to the individual voter to decide if a person’s dalliances with their personal sexual freedoms add up to bad decisions. I would posit that, in the US, a large segment of the voting population does believe that anything other than sex within a monogamous relationship is a bad decision.
So finally, I believe that in order to gain the trust of the voting population, public figures should be willing to be forthcoming about their private lives to prove that they make good decisions both when the public, political, media eye is on them, and when it isn’t. I want to be assured that their decisions on my behalf will be good whether the individual is being watched or not. I want to get to make the choice about whether a particular “private” act adds up to poor decision making.
[ July 23, 2004, 04:11 AM: Message edited by: rubble ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Night all.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'm pretty sure this is the same guy who, before he withdrew, hired an aide to follow his competitor everywhere, including the bathroom to dig up information.
I think a little bit of private information is good, but it's really easy to use information that doesn't have a credible impact on one's ability to make public decisions. As with most issues, it's a matter of degrees.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
My problem with this story is that the divorce records had been sealed. Neither of the Ryans wanted them unsealed. But a reporter convinced the judge to unseal them because the public had a right to know.
I saw a great op-ed piece wondering if that meant Kerry's divorce records should be unsealed and made public. After all, we apparently need to know these things to make an informed decision about our politicians. He wasn't exactly holding his breath for that to happen.
To me, the really funny part is the same people who threw such a fit about Clinton's sex life are now mad about everyone peering into Ryan's. This is pretty much partisan politics at its worst.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I think the key here is that Mr. Ryan wanted to take his private sex life somewhat public in the first place...
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
Irami,
I find this tactic by Ryan disturbing. I also don't think it addresses the same issue of the release of "private" information into the public domain.
In the first case, Jack Ryan's wife's testimony, which had been contained in sealed court proceedings, was released by a judge to the public. As I stated above I believe this helps the voting public make judgments about the candidate. I personally don't think that specific behavior we're talking about here should be a factor limiting an individual from public office. But even if I was voting in that election, I would only get one vote!
The second case is a member of the public demanding unfettered access to a public official's public time, not his private time. I think that full and open disclosure of an elected official's actions in the capacity of serving the public is mandatory. However, I'm not sure that this need for "openness" extends to this type of harassment tactic.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Shouldn't we be giving Jack Ryan a break, though? I mean he did save the British royale family from terrorists and helped capture the Red October. Gotta give the man his props.
fil
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:To me, the really funny part is the same people who threw such a fit about Clinton's sex life are now mad about everyone peering into Ryan's. This is pretty much partisan politics at its worst.
The Paula Jones case was not a "sex" thing, it was a sexual harassment & assault thing. Sexual harassment is about power, not sex, remember?
The Monica Lewinsky issue was about lying in a deposition to avoid liability in the above case.
And remember, there was never any finding of fact in the Jones case - the judge granted summary judgment on the grounds that even if Clinton did everything alleged, it did not amount to harassment because it was only one time.
Dagonee
[ July 23, 2004, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I disagreed with the decision to release his records, and ever lawyer I have seen (with the obvious exception of the ones who asked for the disclosuer) have said it was a terrible decision.
A public official still has all the rights that other Americans have, and most of the public agrees with that. There needs to be at least some sort of barrier that the press can't go beyond.
No person has even been without fault, and could hold up to the intense scrutiny Ryan did. It does affect some people's decision yto run now, more than ever.
Why does the public have any right to know what his sexual relations were like with his ex-wife? Do you want the media to print all the details (or lack of details) of your sex life? How would that ever affect his job performance?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Right or not, we still like to pretend we are a "moral" country and we have standards.
Those standards may be amazingly juvenile belief structures, but it is the de facto standard to which we judge other people.
"Because we have a right to know" is a fine line deal and not one that should be applied in most cases. That argument has been draped on every person in the public eye and is used to justify some grotesque invasions of privacy.
With that said, I can't feel badly for Mr. Ryan because this was the world he chose to involve himself in. Right or wrong, he had to know and therefore expect such scrutiny of his affairs. If he wasn't prepared for that, I don't believe he had any business trying to run.
-Trevor
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I think that if private information gets out on its own (meaning the owner makes it public, or there become legal issues, etc) it wouldn't be smart to ignore it. If you find out something disparaging about a person and DON'T let it affect how you see them, then you're not making a fair choice. But it's not a good idea to go digging up what people do privately...if it's not already public (as in a legal battle) then it's none of your business.
That said, I really find an issue with this statement:
quote: "Remember the worst that can be said about me is that I propositioned my wife — my wife! — in an inappropriate place," Ryan said.
I'm thinking that if he can't respect his wife, then who is he going to respect? It would seem to me that the way you treat your wife would be a far greater indicator of how you'll be in office than how you treat your hamster, or even some nasty on the street.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I do NOT need to know about the sex lives of politicians. I don't care. It has nothing at all to do with how well they can do the job. Furthermore, it leads to hypocritical bickering, Gingrinch (sp) ranting about Clinton's actions when he himself has had an affair. Of course, in the case of Clinton his actions were stupid and inappropiate because they happened in the White House. That is disgraceful. But, only one thing truly matters in the political arena: whether the person can do a good job.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Which leads to an interesting question - how many Presidents have ever had sex in the White House?
Or at least outside an area we would normally consider designated for sexual activity, i.e. the bedroom.
-Trevor
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Kwea, if I remember correctly, what he had wanted to do was to go to a sex club and have sex with her while other folks watch. Like I said, he wanted to bring that part of his private life into the public domain.
But let's look at it just a bit more closely (pun not really intended). He has a beautiful, loving wife who just happens to be a television star. In some ways you could say he managed to land a 10. So, rather than enjoying his success privately and within the bounds of societal and marital norms, he takes her out and, against her wishes, wants to have sex with her while other folks watch. His desire to do this was so strong that it, in part at least, led to his divorce.
Now, he can't control his urges to show off his wife in such an intimate way to the point where he ends up ruining his marriage. So, let's get this man of ambition and urge a position of public office, one where he has to compete to win the adoration of the public to get elected. Let's say he manages to do so and receives the big, big ego boost it must be to win a high office.
If his psyche couldn't help but ruin his marriage because of his need to boast his sexual conquest in public, leading him down a path that was so disastrous, how would his extreme pride affect his ability as a legislator? And how would his obviously poor judgement (his own urges vs. his husbandly/legislative duties and sensibilities) end up affecting his constituents?
Sure there have been people of high office who couldn't keep their sexual conquests purely to their spouse, but what about one who actively sought to bring them out of private and into the public?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I'm with PSI, to extroplate a little bit, wouldn't you want to know if an official you might be voting for was abusing his wife and children? Harassing your wife publically to have sex with you in front of a club full of people isn't that far removed from abuse. They both show the same lack of respect for the partner.
Posted by Cowboy Poet (Member # 6724) on :
It only matters if it's someone from the opposition involved. The whole Clinton fiasco has given the Dems all they need to attack anyone at any future point and then say, "Well, you did it to Clinton...." Of course, I don't know if Ryan has ever gone on TV and looked the American public in the eye and said "I never had sex with that woman" I really have not paid much attention to the Ryan story, but I am curious as the the reaction of femenists groups and women's rights groups. . . they were eerily silent during the Clinton affair.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Interesting take, Sopwith. I never connected exhibitionism with the ego boost of having a gorgeous partner. My understanding is that is not the primary motivation in these cases, but, as always, there is the caveat that I am not an expert.
I think it's really humourous, though, how this has turned into some kind of huge misogynistic pattern in some people's eyes.
First of all, it was a private sex club. These things exist to facilitate activities such as he proposed. For her to be shocked at the whole thing is tantamount to going to a bar with someone and being shocked when they buy you a drink (or going to a Grateful Dead concert and being shocked when someone offers you acid? pick your analogy). Secondly, as far as I have been able to determine from the story, he propositioned, she said "no" and that was it. Perhaps I am misremembering what I read, but to characterize that as "harassment" seems entirely hyperbolic.
And for those comparing this to Clinton, it comes down to one huge thing: Clinton flat lied both under oath and to the American people about it. Jack Ryan, given the same opportunity, didn't. That right there says enough about which one I'd rather have in office.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
A large part of the uproar is because he assured everyone the only things sealed dealt with his child.
As you can see, he was lying.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I was unaware of that, Fugu, and stand corrected.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:I agree with Mr. Ryan, for the most part. Why not judge a candidate on his political ideas rather than his personal ones that, as far as I can tell, have no bearing on his fitness as a candidate?
Because his political ideas also deal, in part, with the sex lives of many people. Namely homosexuals. He follows the typical Republican ideal that homosexuals are attempting to destroy the institution of marriage, while he had no compunctions about taking his marriage to what is the equivalent of a sexual swap-meet in a mostly public place. I think having the public aware of that horrid hypocrisiy would have a great deal of bearing over whether he is worthwhile for a vote. That would apply to both those who think vote with the threat to marriage on their minds as well as those who sympathize with homosexuals wanting to marry.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think it was that he wanted the records sealed "for the sake of his child"
There is a slight semantical difference. Also these allegations were never proven (as in he is guilty until proven innocent rather than the other way around) and they were spoken during a custody battle over the child. Sadly, often during a messy divorce both parents try to paint the other with as vile a brush as possible in order to keep the child closer to them.
I don't really think it is in the best interest of the kid but it does happen all the time...
AJ
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Jim-me, would you please read what I said about Ryan before reacting in a knee-jerk manner? His own claim is the following:
quote:I believe that marriage can only be defined as that union between one man and one woman. I am opposed to same-sex marriages, civil unions, and registries.
He goes on to say he is "defending traditional marriage" in that first page.
You don't need to apologize for your reaction, but I seriously urge you to not personalize criticism to a politician running for office when their policy is brought into question. Also, I mentioned that both those who value "traditional marriage" and those who support same-sex marriage would have a stake in how this man handled his own marriage, which has been purportedly very non-traditional.
Get off my back.
Edit: it seems he did, all the way to the point of deleting his post. Interesting.
[ July 23, 2004, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:I think it was that he wanted the records sealed "for the sake of his child"
AJ, that turned out to be untrue as well. Part of the unsealed records contained the motions to seal - no mention of the welfare of the child, but there were references to his political aspirations.
I agree, though, that it stinks. Ryan was also stupid for not seeing it coming and then lying to his own party leaders about whether or not there was anything to worry about in the sealed records.
Illinois Republicans brought this on themselves. Peter Fitzgerald, the current Senator, is a very conservative Republican who could have given any Democrat a run for their money. While I probably wouldn't vote for him, even a lefty like me likes the guy because he is so relentlessly and outspokenly honest. As a result, Illinois Republican leaders can't stand him. Fitzgerald decided against a second run for the Senate because he knew the party here wouldn't be backing him.
BTW, I don't want to single out the Republicans in Illinois - this is a dirty state, on both sides of the political aisle.
[ July 23, 2004, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Ok I'm sure you are right sndrake. I've been avoiding the news like the plague recently.
AJ
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I find that difference more than semantic.
I guess I'm going to have to find out for myself what Ryan said so I can decide whether I like him or not except that I just don't care that much because I'm never going to meet him and he's never going to be on any ballot I see.
I could understand him not wanting his child to read that about him.
Off shoot question for all who are smacking him around for his disdain of marriage: if someone is into a particular sexual adventure, why is it so horrible to approach their partner about it? I mean, I'll grant you that perhaps getting to the fringe of it and saying "hey! let's jump in!" may not be the most sensitive way of going about it, but things like this are damned difficult to talk about at all, and (again, unless I'm remembering incorrectly) all he did was ask if she'd like to try it and she said "no".
Let's say person "x" wants to try a menage a trois. A friend, "y", is also interested. Person "x" invites person "y" over, mixes a few drinks for them and significant other "z". They get comfortable, it gets flirtatious, and then person "x" suggests the menage. S.O. "z" enbarassedly declines and explains that they aren't really interested. The party is probably ruined, everyone goes to bed a little tense, and "x" and "z" may eventually separate over it (in which case it would seem a very weak relationship).
Aside from being insensitive and tactless, what has "x" done wrong?
[ July 23, 2004, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Why interesting?
I'm sorry, Justa, I actually had a post in there for a time saying I had deleted and was waiting to see if you had responded to my erroneous post. I mis-read yours, that was all...
[ July 23, 2004, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Not behaved in a "traditional" way in the marriage. Would you want person "x" defending your idea of "traditional" even though they don't seem to share the ideal?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Well, as I said (and deleted) earlier, I don't want person "x" defending my idea of marriage at all. My marriage is what I make it, not what the state makes it.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I think X should have approached partner Z long before introducing Y into the equation.
By finding out if Z was interested or not beforehand would save a lot of headache, frustration and irritation.
Z is going to be mad that he or she was put on the spot and is feeling like X is pressuring him or her to do something that she or he just doesn't want to do.
As for Jack's behavior - inviting your wife to a sex club is one thing. Expecting her to participate when you haven't discussed the issue beforehand? Stupid. I can go to a bar while someone else drinks, but you can't get mad if I don't want the drink when you didn't ask me if I was going to be indulging in the first place.
-Trevor
Edit: Unfortunately, Jack is running on a platform of defending "traditional" values. And yes, people still vote because of that. Lets make everyone conform to our values because, well, they're traditional! (/rant)
[ July 23, 2004, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
agreed, stupid and likely to have exactly the result that Jack Ryan got, but *abusive*?
Insensitive? sure...
for clarity: My issue is with those condemning the action, not it's clash with the defense of marriage act.
[ July 23, 2004, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
There are no clear legal definitions for abuse.
Remember, if I just touch your shoulder without _express_ permission, I could be arrested and charged with battery.
Were you scared of me? Probably not. Did I intend to hurt, harm or otherwise endanger you? Nope. Still counts.
Simply saying, "honey, the dishes are dirty" or "haven't you done the laundry yet?" could be construed as abuse. Depending on the context, it could be verbal abuse, emotional abuse or the sign that I have a lazy wife and need a divorce.
And before I get jumped for any of the possible interpretations, any of them could be true.
-Trevor
Edit: As a rule, I tend not to agree with the upholders of "traditional values" because they can rarely define what exactly they mean by "traditional" values.
And before you think this was a silly reason to have a campaign tank, think about Howard Dean. His enthusiastic screech was entirely appropriate for a pep rally, but it got blown into the lunatic ravings of a demented loon.
[ July 23, 2004, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
That it's not an issue with you is fine, Jim. However, the reality is that it would be an issue to a great many people, on both sides of the traditional marriage clash, to the point that it would most likely be an influential piece of information.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
You know, that's one of my big problems with our laws on abuse and harassment. Intent means nothing. Sexual harassment law literally reads that it's all in the eye of the victim, the objective actions taken do not matter (at least as has been explained to me in every HR briefing I've had).
That, to me, seems like a ridiculously easy way to set up someone you dislike.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Welcome to the wonderful world of Law.
It's amazingly difficult to prove intent, whether yea or nay. We can make assumptions based on actions, but it's hard to prove.
And the law is quite often a matter of interpretation and clever arguing, as well as the people receiving the arguments.
-Trevor
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Trevor,
Plenty of silly things tank campaigns, that's for sure. Re: Law-- we aren't going on intent or actions, though, but perceptions, which is maybe the most specious of all.
Justa,
I'm simply trying to clarify what I am and am not arguing about at this time. I guess I should have started a new thread or something. <shrug>
[ July 23, 2004, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
So he's got an exhibitionistic streak. MAYBE.
WHO GIVES A FLYING F*$^?
Obviously I should never run for public office in America. As it turns out, I'm not American, but you never know -- it might be the same up here, and we just haven't had a case like his. That would make me sad.
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
Does anyone else agree that the issues of
"Should there be public disclosure of private matters"
and
"Are you fit for office if you've been to a sex club"
are completely separate?
[ July 23, 2004, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: rubble ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Twink - his conservative voters, apparently.
I didn't say it was a good reason to vote or not vote for him, just that some people would use it as a criterion for various reasons.
Rubble - sure, but they seem to be intertwined for various reasons.
Yes, depending on the private matter.
I don't care particularly. As I noted in Twink's response, there are some people who do care, for various reasons.
-Trevor
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Obviously these conservative voters were not also libertarians. The conservative movement in America needs more libertarians.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Too true, twinky, too true.
Edit: Based on your comments in the tax thread, I assume you mean social libertarians, right?
[ July 23, 2004, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Snicker. I'd guess they were Republicans with Religious Right sympathies.
Just a hunch. Although, to be fair, "public sex clubs" could still be shocking enough to voters on either side of the fence that it would sway their vote for or against.
As long as the sexual interaction consists of "consenting adults", I can't say that I really care.
-Trevor
Edit: For spelling
[ July 23, 2004, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Justa's right that if he's taking stances againstother consensual sexual behavior, it might be relevant. Opposing civil gay marriage would be closing in on hypocrisy; advocating anti-sodomy laws would be sailing clear on past the border.
Dagonee
Posted by Mockingbird (Member # 5640) on :
Other than the "character" issue - which may or may not be relevant to a particular voter in any particular case - another traditional reason for thinking these sorts of morality issues are relevant is for political blackmail purposes. It's easy enough for a politician who doesn't want a particular personal secret (propositioning wife for public sex in a sex club, homosexuality, affairs, etc.) to be made public to agree to take a certain political action, or refrain from a political action, that he or she wouldn't have done otherwise. It's been done, I'm sure with success in at least some cases. Would it work nowadays, when people are more generally accepting of different lifestyles? Probably less often - but still often enough, I'd guess. And that is relevant to me.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Too true, twinky, too true.
Edit: Based on your comments in the tax thread, I assume you mean social libertarians, right?
Well, given that they're already conservative (and are thus a lost cause ), they don't have to be exclusively social libertarians.
But seriously, though, I do mean social libertarians. Good point.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think sex clubbing is just as good reason not to vote for someone as being fat, bald, or dressed funny. When's the last time we nominated one of those?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Pooka, have you taken a good look at some of the politicians we have had in office? O_O
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
You know, any reason is a good enough reason not to vote for someone.
Seriously.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
This is strange... how did the media talking about this make his campain collapse? Why didn't he stick with it?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
touche, Telperion... good call.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
He was brought enough to know when to cut his losses.
-Trevor
Edit: Moron. Me, that is. It was supposed to be "bright" enough. Faugh.
[ July 24, 2004, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
What gets me is that this board has a large collection of what would be considered 'perverts' by a lot of the rest of the nation, or does everyone here think that LDS are the norm throughout the country? Essentially, the argument for voting on someone's personal predilictions is that you want someone like you because, therefore, that person is 'trustworthy'. If this is the case, most Mormons on the board may as well not even attempt to run for office. Likewise, you roll players are right out. And how about you book readers? You ain't representative of very many people, you know.
Jim-Me is absolutely right. If everything is relevant, nothing is relevant.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I wasn't being sarcastic, Stormy, I meant it.
It's like getting married. If you don't want to marry someone, you don't need a reason. Same with voting, if you don't want to vote for someone, don't.
Either way, though, you have to be prepared for the results.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I know you meant it. I wasn't being sarcastic either.
My point in this thread isn't to say that a person can't vote on a candidate's 'character'. Obviously, in our glorious atomic age with the electronic media ever present, it's almost impossible for people not to know everything about you. If it doesn't get outright recorded while you are doing it, people will get it second-hand from your friends, relatives, wives, former lovers, etc. So, with this knowledge, some people are going to use it as a factor in their decisions.
My question is should they. My answer is, they should not. Just because a technology exists and we can find out whatever we want about our neighbors, friends, enemies and politicians, doesn't mean it should be used without discretion or that people should pay attention to it when it is.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
), they don't have to be exclusively social libertarians. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)