Posted on 06/16/2009 7:46:53 PM PDT by Artemis Webb
It is that simple.
How in the world does the fact that a private sin has become public effect, in any way, the PURPOSE of elected officials in a representative Republic?
We are NOT voting for people who live like we want them to live, we are voting for people who VOTE, on LEGISLATION, the way we want them to VOTE!
It is childish, naive, and self defeating to consider these personal failures, and voting issues, any other way.
It is also self-righteous.
Our country is in DIRE condition.
The sexual habits of our Founders were, most likely, not at all Saintly, for all of those who signed the Declaration or who attended the Constitutional Convention -—
But their final judgment is for God to decide.
I simply thank GOD that they were there, in the right place, voting the right way, when we needed them.
Just as I feel about our police and firefighters and our military.
“-— YOU are a moral coward if you fail to vote for the conservative or if you vote for the liberal!”
I never vote liberal.
“How in the world does the fact that a private sin has become public effect, in any way, the PURPOSE of elected officials in a representative Republic?”
It depends on the “private” sin. Conservatives vote according to a candidates platform, political record, and religious beliefs. If a statesman violates public trust based on these principles, he is not qualified to serve.
It has been revealed that Sen. Ensign violated a sacred vow. The Senators public confession was motivated by blackmail, not because his conscience compelled the statesman to repent. Sen. Ensign is a liar. He lived a lie by betraying his friends trust as well as his wifes. These are FACTS, not my “self-righteous” judgment. We can forgive him of his sin, but we do not owe him our trust.
“We are NOT voting for people who live like we want them to live...”
It all depends on what you mean by “live”. Are you suggesting that if your candidate openly admitted that he enjoys having sexual relations with women although he’s married, you’d vote for him anyway? I wouldn’t.
“...we are voting for people who VOTE, on LEGISLATION, the way we want them to VOTE!”
You seem to believe that a lack of character and voting on legislation are mutually exclusive. It is not. A man’s character, or lack there of, dictates his decisions/behavior whether it’s behind closed doors or on the legislative floor.
“Our country is in DIRE condition”
The irony is profound. The United States of American is in “DIRE condition” due to the fact that we have men in power whom are morally bankrupt, but I guess I’m being self-righteous. Although these politicians hold a complete disregard for integrity, it doesn’t matter to you. As I observed, the irony is evident.
“The sexual habits of our Founders....who attended the Constitutional Convention-”
Pardon me, but another red herring? We can talk hypothetical all night long.
“But their final judgment is for God to decide” “I simply thank GOD that they were there, in the right place, voting the right way, when we needed them.” “Just as I feel about our police and firefighters and our military.”
As do I, but we’re not talking about our police officers, firefighters, or military.
I find it interesting that you’ll vehemently talk about God’s judgment and others being self-righteous in the same breath.
Are you a politician by any chance?
Point taken, in part.
I simply think that Republicans work at a great disadvantage, as we expect near perfection out of our leaders, while the Democrats excuse nearly anything their politicians might do.
However, to be judgmental about being judgmental IS judgmental.
I am not judging you, I am simply frustrated by the reality of the Democrats advantage, in this area.
No, they are surely NOT morally superior, in fact they are less so, it seems to me.
But, they have the advantage of the fact that their base does not give a rip, and ours DOES!
Are you suggesting we, as conservatives, should strive to lessen our standards of those whom serve in office as the liberals do? You’re setting your sights pretty low, buddy. Those “standards”, for lack of a better word, have consequences.
How do you like this new administration? Are you enjoying that; the economy in the tank, America’s kids being burdened with dept that will affect all of us for decades to come, the Muslim connection, the propaganda, the undermining of our military, the usurping of power, etc.? Well, pal, it’s all because of the morally corrupt liberals you so admirably respect.
Conservatives high standards gave us individuals like Ronald Reagan. The liberals can boast of jokes like Jimmy Carter, Clinton, and now O.
I disagree with your accusation that Republicans expect near perfection. You could hardly suggest George Bush was near perfection. In his past, he loved to drink and rabble rouse.
Conservatives hold their leaders to a high standard, as we should. Their decisions affect each and every American. I don’t want a adulterer, liar, thief, sexual pervert, narcissistic, classless statesman.
If you had children, and you needed a babysitter. Would you not require a person of upstanding character and integrity? All the more for leaders whom decide on policy which affects all of our babies.
I did not say that all mistakes should be excused, I said in so many words:
Republicans should stop eating their own!
Republicans should stop forming circular firing squads!
It is ENTIRELY possible to have personal failings, and STILL be a courageous warrior in the fight against liberalism.
Now you’re talking about “...eating their own!”, and, “...firing squads!”? If you believe that requiring our conservative leaders to be men of integrity means we’re “eating our own!”, or, shooting our own, then I’m guilty.
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks” - Shakepeare
I have to wonder whether or not you’re a politician, and if you’re one of these public servants that wishes to live by a double standard.
To make a mistake is human, to willfully live by it is to bring judgment upon one’s self.
Obama ran, at first, against a Republican who has been through a messy divorce, for his US Senate Seat.
Obama fought to get the court records made public, because Obama knew their were Republicans like you out there, who think that you are some type of lofty St. Peter, guarding the pearly gates, rather than a humble, practical, realistic person trying win political battles.
This is about math, at election time.
This is about math, on legislation.
Politics is NOT about saving souls -—
Politics is about getting souls that agree with us to the polls!
“Obama came to power in part because Obama KNOWS that Republicans are unforgiving of our own.”
That’s asinine. You mean like John McCain? Hardly the upright politician. Your accusation is about as air tight as a convertible submarine.
“Obama ran, at first, against a Republican who has been through a messy divorce, for his US Senate Seat.”
Is this your proof? Anecdotal. Correlation doesn’t automatically imply causation. Better yet, prove that this “messy divorce” was the SOLE reason the Republican lost the race.
“...Republicans like you out there, who think that you are some type of lofty St. Peter, guarding the pearly gates, rather than a humble, practical, realistic person trying win political battles.”
Interesting, the way you use the word “judgment” like a gunfighter AND ad hominem attacks in the same paragraph. We conservatives base our decisions in voting on leaders of character and integrity, unlike liberals.
The whole reason we have RINO’s is because American’s compromised their principles, or were mislead.
It’s not about numbers. Math doesn’t write/decide policy, human’s do. And if that human is a leader of low character, you can expect compromise in a way that is destructive to the conservative platform.
“Politics is NOT about saving souls”
Pick a lane, buddy, and stay in it. Whose talking about souls saving?
“Politics is about getting souls that agree with us to the polls!”
In examining your words, it’s obvious you have no standards.
I don't want a member of the military, in uniform, who can't shoot straight.
I don't want a fireman who can't climb a ladder, or is afraid of fire.
In no case, above, do the life and death decisions those people make have much to do with their PRIVATE behavior.
If you will look at what I have posted, I have NEVER said that personal morality was NOT an issue, or that it should NOT be considered: In fact, yes, personal ethics and morality ARE important.
Especially when we are left with nothing else to go on, about a candidate.
However, personal morality is important only so much as it gives us an idea as to how much we can trust our candidates to vote the way they promised us they would vote, during the campaign.
Let me put the question to you, directly:
If you ahd two choices, a Republican Conservative who had cheated on his wife, and a liberal Democrat, who seemed to be loyal to his or her spouse:
Who would YOU vote for?
Also, you seem to know little about Obama’s history.
Obama has a political habit of controlling who he runs against, and of removing adversaries from the ballot altogether.
You ask for an impossible “proof” to my claim, for who could say, for certain, that Obama would not have won, if not for his gross misconduct in pushing for the release of his opponents divorce records.
However, there is a REASON why Democrats want to trash Republicans, by going after their personal lives:
Democrats know that many Republicans, like YOU, care more about stroking their own egos, in some kind of moralistic, self-congratulatory masturbation, than they care about actually stopping liberal legislation or advancing conservative legislation.
Politics is about POLICY!
Shooting down our own leaders, due to personal failures, does NOT help the conservative cause.
“If you will look at what I have posted, I have NEVER said that personal morality was NOT an issue...”
Your post #67:
“This is about math, at election time.”
“This is about math, on legislation.”
Forget about picking a lane. Just exit the freeway.
“If you ahd two choices, a Republican Conservative who had cheated on his wife, and a liberal Democrat, who seemed to be loyal to his or her spouse:”
You can just take the liberal out of the picture. Concerning the R, it would depend. If Joe Q cheated on his wife in history past, and rededicated himself to their marriage, based decisions on a true conservative platform, and he was the ONLY choice, he would receive my vote.
“You ask for an impossible “proof” to my claim, for who could say, for certain, that Obama would not have won, if not for his gross misconduct in pushing for the release of his opponents divorce records.”
If you can’t substantiate your accusation with your anecdotal example, don’t use it. It exposes your flawed argument. Gives the impression that you’re grasping at straws, which is what naturally happens when you try to suggest that voting on character and integrity is wrong.
“Democrats know that many Republicans, like YOU, care more about stroking their own egos, in some kind of moralistic, self-congratulatory masturbation, than they care about actually stopping liberal legislation or advancing conservative legislation.”
Again, the irony. Pot, meet kettle.
Ad hominem and vulgarity to boot. I don’t wish to argue with a person whom can’t express him/herself without using such language. It reveals their lack of control and class.
TJI
Yes, and where does my post #67 say that personal morality does not matter at all?
I said that “politics is not about saving souls, politics is about getting those who agree with you, to the polls” -—
And, as stated, but I will make it more clear for those who can not figure it out for themselves:
Personal Morality IS a clue as to whether or not someone agrees with you or not, and personal morality is a clue as to whether we can trust someone to keep campaign promises.
It is a question of degrees, a question of weighting the information available.
You seem to be part of the “circular firing squad” that Republicans are famous for -— so famous that Democrats KNOW that fighting dirty, against us, WORKS!
It is public knowledge.
That you seem so ignorant of this history makes me, at least, feel good that I have educated you on something, and that this discourse has not been a complete waste of my time.
I refer you to “Obamanation” by Jerome Corsi, and “The Case against Barack Obama” by David Freddoso.
I also believe that Mark Levin brings it up, briefly, in his book, but I might have heard him say it on the air.
So, again, I rarely resort to vulgarities.
You are the rare exception, have a nice evening.
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.