Posted on 06/24/2009 9:14:21 PM PDT by Pitcairn
Your turn, again....What Conservative principle teaches adultery?...how does Sanford's behavior possibly reflect on Conservatism? And...what is your game here? MSM water-boy?
Er video *taped*.
Sanford’s sex life has ZERO to do with Conservatism
Do you think lying, cheating, and not being honorable are part of conservative principles? Yes or no?
Just answer yes or no.
What are you afraid of?
Will you pledge to call tomorrow?
CO2 Cap And Tax House Bill H.R. 2454
No New Tax System
Jam the phone lines
202-224-3121
SAUL ALINSKY’S RULES FOR RADICALS
Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.
Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”
Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.
Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”
Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.
Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”
Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”
How many Democrats do you think will no longer support Sanford now?
Wake up, the media makes a big fuss over our people's trangressions because they know that we will cast them out, we will do their work for them and rid ourselves of potentially strong players over what is actually a personal matter between Sanford and his family.
We are not stoning the man.
We are correctly rebuking him for adultery which even Jesus said was grounds for divorce.
If we do not call evil by its true name, evil prevails.
It is evil to say because no person is sinless, we should not rebuke immoral acts. Moral people must rebuke adultery or we grant license to it.
Because lying is common, should we grant license to all manner of lying?
If there are not to be moral considerations in looking at candidates for public office, what list of liars, thieves and swindlers are we left to consider?
And the Democrats retain their adulterers in office while we cast ours out.
I do not condone adultery, but who are we to judge what is between Sanford and his wife?
If she can attempt to reconcile, who are any of us to demand his head?
Odd how Sanford’s record no longer has any meaning, isn’t it?
Sometimes I think that if Jesus himself returned and ran for office, evangelicals would find a reason to oppose him and hold him to a standard they cannot offer themselves.
And, just which scripture grants you right to rebuke anyone?
Jesus did say adultery is grounds for divorce, in fact, the ONLY grounds.
But, where did he say that should a man commit adultery, he must be thrown out of any political office he may hold?
Holier than thou's are as sinful as anyone, whether they like to admit it or not. They might not have commited physical adultery, but can you honestly say you never looked at a member of the opposite sex in your entire lifetime in a lustful manner?
Didn't Jesus say that too was adultery, but of the heart?
Once again, the Dems and compliant MSM are using Alinsky’s rules to great effect, and the Pubs are letting them get away with it by playing by the Dem rules. There’s little hope for the Republican party imho as long as they let the Dems frame the debate. “Fairness” has nothing to do with this debate.
OBTW this is in no way a defense of Sanford - he deserves what’s coming to him. But for the Pubs to fall back on their heels yet again is extremely disappointing.
Perhaps it’s time to require our esteemed public servants to undergo annual background checks and random drug testing.
I’m on record as having said that his act was rotten. There’s no way around this.
As I read this article, however, I am thinking out loud a bit and wondering what kind of marriage this really was. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090625/D991CLHO1.html
Maybe it’s not artfully phrased and I’m inferring something not there, but I got the impression that this was almost a “business-like” arrangement, not unlike Bill & Hillary Clinton. I don’t know much of these folks beyond what I read but it almost sounds like she was the push behind the throne. If true, while that may work while you’re young and ambitious, I can tell you that it’s not the kind of thing that lends itself to surviving a mid-life crisis. Which is what this sounds like to me.
The truth of the matter is when you’re in your twenties and trying to move up in the world, it’s good to have a partner in crime...a helpmate who shares your vision and ambition.
But when you’re in your late forties, and you’ve already achieved that shared goal, sometimes you want something else. Especially when your own mortality is then in plain view.
That said, he has no excuse for his conduct. If this is how he felt, the honorable thing to do was to go through a real separation and a real divorce. After a dignified amount of time, he could resume a relationship with this woman, out in the open. Which would have avoided dragging the whole family through this sordid matter.
What he did was way...............not cool.
I'm sure there's such a thing on political figures in this country (and probably the rest of the world).Everyone has a past - and in the Sanford's case a present - rock the boat and the information gets passed to the media.
I mention this because Sanford had been very vocal in his opposition to the current takeover of this country by banking interests through all manner of debt.....effectively mortgaging this country for next century.
Sanford crossed the line and like Spitzer was taken down by the banksters
Here’s a case that’s close to home. I’m really close to one of my cousins, who’s going through something similar with his wife. Married for 8 years, 2 beautiful kids (5 and 6 months), good job (CEO at a bank), and on the surface, seems to have a great marriage… He’s caught her cheating on at least 3 occasions (different guys), but wants to make it work, for themselves and the family
She met another friend at a conference, and has been very close with him the past year or two. They call each other almost every day, and text hundreds of times a month. He knows they’ve had feelings for each other, and act inappropriately when together, at times…
He’s a good looking, great person, and still treats her great… She said she wants to make it work, but isn’t happy… she says the “spark” is gone and the “connection” isn’t there the way it used to be (he can’t elaborate on what they mean by either term), and wants to bring it back.
My advice to him? Leave the b-. Now. Yet, he still wants to stick with it, cause he loves her, and feels he can recapture the “spark”…
So… what’s wrong with these people? Is my advice wrong? Should I not interfere? Is not having the “spark/connection” enough to break off a marriage?
It’s finally starting to sink in, not just my comments, but his friends and family… he’s thinking about giving her an ultimatum… I think he’s a fool for not having left long ago, even though the kids will suffer.
Any thoughts?
You said — You know waht is funny about this I was thinking maybe this woman was a plant I dont know seems like the o administration has a way pf leveling the playing field.
—
Man..., that Obama is *good* then... LOL...
He devised a “plant” years and years ago, kept it going all this time — just so he could “take him out” now that Obama became President, and that was before anyone knew even the name “Obama”....
Any politician who can do that, my hat goes off to him... :-)
You said, to another poster — So do you think this behavior is new?
—
Nope, it’s not new, but it’s still just as unacceptable as it has been from the beginning and is defined as sin, from a fallen mankind — of which the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob condemns along with all other sinful acts.
Just because sin has been with us since Adam and Eve doesn’t make it any more acceptable...
You said - Maybe he met his new flame at the recent Bilderberger meeting,which he attended?
—
Then he’s been meeting her there for years and years... LOL...
Of course not. There is no excuse. There is also no excuse for adultery and I would never dream of 'excusing' Sanford for that. What I object to, and there has been much of it, is people who condemn him and take up ridiculous name-calling with such vehemence that it appears they would be more than happy to personally toss him into Hell.
What I saw in that press conference was a man who was confessing his sin and asking forgiveness. Was it under pressure? Sure, but who knows what sort of things result in conviction of the heart leading to repentance. Was he sincere? Only God knows that. Once someone has begun the process of seeking forgiveness and repentance it is incumbent upon the rest of the believing community so pray for and support that person seeking to restore them.
At this point, he's a tragedy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.