Since liberals don't claim the moral high ground on social issues, Clinton has no bearing on this. Conservatives, by their efforts to paint themselves as morally upright, dig their own graves on issues such as these. They're the ones who put themselves on the pedestal, thereby setting themselves up for the big fall.

 

Ones who claim to be overly virtuous make it even worse on themselves.

Exactly. She dug her own grave, now she has to lie in it...though you could argue that's what got her here to begin with.

Since liberals don't claim the moral high ground on social issues, Clinton has no bearing on this. Conservatives, by their efforts to paint themselves as morally upright, dig their own graves on issues such as these. They're the ones who put themselves on the pedestal, thereby setting themselves up for the big fall.

 

Ones who claim to be overly virtuous make it even worse on themselves.

 

What you are basically saying is that when liberals do something stupid, it isn't nearly as bad because of the moral views or how they portray them? :ohbrother:

 

How is putting family values to a high priority putting oneself on a higher pedestal? I think her critics paint her as putting herself on a high platform. I have never seen her claim to be so much more virtuous than the average person.

 

This happened over 20 years ago. Who cares? Like we haven't done something stupid or spur of the moment? Her doing this gives her no right to preach of family values?

 

I don't see why people are comparing the two but since we are lets look at the situations.

 

Palin: Was engaged from what I have read on this thread, had a one night stand and the following year got married and pregnant while she was in her 20's.

 

Clinton: Elected to the highest and most respectable office possible. Was already married, had a kid and getting head from an intern then lied in court about it.

 

I can see where you are coming from.

 

People don't like her as it is (and I am not her biggest fan) but they have something to rip her on so they will show no mercy. You adore Clinton so you are going to just brush it off to the side.

Are you speaking of the iconic, Nailin' Palin?

 

:thumb:

 

Nice.

“@TheBillWalton: So does this news about Glen Rice make Sarah Palin a long lost Kardashian sister? #ThingsToPonderAtNight”

What you are basically saying is that when liberals do something stupid, it isn't nearly as bad because of the moral views or how they portray them? :ohbrother:

 

How is putting family values to a high priority putting oneself on a higher pedestal? I think her critics paint her as putting herself on a high platform. I have never seen her claim to be so much more virtuous than the average person.

 

This happened over 20 years ago. Who cares? Like we haven't done something stupid or spur of the moment? Her doing this gives her no right to preach of family values?

 

I don't see why people are comparing the two but since we are lets look at the situations.

 

Palin: Was engaged from what I have read on this thread, had a one night stand and the following year got married and pregnant while she was in her 20's.

 

Clinton: Elected to the highest and most respectable office possible. Was already married, had a kid and getting head from an intern then lied in court about it.

 

I can see where you are coming from.

 

People don't like her as it is (and I am not her biggest fan) but they have something to rip her on so they will show no mercy. You adore Clinton so you are going to just brush it off to the side.

:thumb:

I saw this nugget on twitter also.....

 

'No wonder Palin is against affirmative action. She already filled her quota.'

Since liberals don't claim the moral high ground on social issues, Clinton has no bearing on this. Conservatives, by their efforts to paint themselves as morally upright, dig their own graves on issues such as these. They're the ones who put themselves on the pedestal, thereby setting themselves up for the big fall.

 

Ones who claim to be overly virtuous make it even worse on themselves.

Wow.

So as long as you don't try to hold yourself to higher moral standards you get a free pass to wade in the pool of immorality? I am not a Clinton hater by any means and I hope Palin doesn't even run, but this arguement doesn't seem like it would make a liberal stand up and say, "Yes! This is what we stand for! Clinton's affair was OK because he claimed no moral ground!"

What you are basically saying is that when liberals do something stupid, it isn't nearly as bad because of the moral views or how they portray them? :ohbrother:

 

How is putting family values to a high priority putting oneself on a higher pedestal? I think her critics paint her as putting herself on a high platform. I have never seen her claim to be so much more virtuous than the average person.

I'm not saying it isn't as bad. But they don't come across as pandering hypocrites. If you make "family values" the basis of your platform don't you think it's safe to assume extra-marital affairs and cocaine use aren't part of the "family values" platform? If you answer no to that, then your last name must be Sheen. So yes, Palin brought extra scrutiny upon herself in issues such as these. Look at one of the thousands of times she has spoken publicly, it's not the media and/or her critics doing this. Palin wants to be the God-fearing face of the Christian Right, so she will get EVERYTHING that comes with that.

 

This happened over 20 years ago. Who cares? Like we haven't done something stupid or spur of the moment? Her doing this gives her no right to preach of family values?

 

I don't see why people are comparing the two but since we are lets look at the situations.

 

Palin: Was engaged from what I have read on this thread, had a one night stand and the following year got married and pregnant while she was in her 20's.

 

Clinton: Elected to the highest and most respectable office possible. Was already married, had a kid and getting head from an intern then lied in court about it. .

Read the entire thread or the actual story. It's ALSO alleged that she had an extra-marital affair and used cocaine.

Wow.

So as long as you don't try to hold yourself to higher moral standards you get a free pass to wade in the pool of immorality? I am not a Clinton hater by any means and I hope Palin doesn't even run, but this arguement doesn't seem like it would make a liberal stand up and say, "Yes! This is what we stand for! Clinton's affair was OK because he claimed no moral ground!"

 

 

****Analogy******

 

It looks worse for the cop who runs the Dare program to get caught selling drugs than it does for a cop not affiliated with Dare. They are both equally wrong, but the Dare cop will receive far more scrutiny.

****Analogy******

 

It looks worse for the cop who runs the Dare program to get caught selling drugs than it does for a cop not affiliated with Dare. They are both equally wrong, but the Dare cop will receive far more scrutiny.

 

From whom, the idiot's who's baby's are pushing the drugs? No there is no thin line, there is no honest well it's ok because it was under these circumstances pass, there's just the fact that it's not right.

I'm not saying it isn't as bad. But they don't come across as pandering hypocrites. If you make "family values" the basis of your platform don't you think it's safe to assume extra-marital affairs and cocaine use aren't part of the "family values" platform? If you answer no to that, then your last name must be Sheen. So yes, Palin brought extra scrutiny upon herself in issues such as these. Look at one of the thousands of times she has spoken publicly, it's not the media and/or her critics doing this. Palin wants to be the God-fearing face of the Christian Right, so she will get EVERYTHING that comes with that.

 

I have yet to see a politician (Democrat or Republican) not try and make us believe they are anything but an outstanding family member with high moral standards. They all come across as hypocrites to me.

Edited September 15, 201115 yr by bugatti

From whom, the idiot's who's baby's are pushing the drugs? No there is no thin line, there is no honest well it's ok because it was under these circumstances pass, there's just the fact that it's not right.

 

Who said anything about it being okay?

 

The last sentence in my post read.....and I quote......"They are both equally wrong but the Dare officer will receive far more scrutiny.".

 

Did you miss that sentence when I made my analogy?

Who said anything about it being okay?

 

The last sentence in my post read.....and I quote......"They are both equally wrong but the Dare officer will receive far more scrutiny.".

 

Did you miss that sentence when I made my analogy?

 

I thought your analogy was spot-on. I agree with you & Jim that things of this nature make "family values" politicians look horrible, and I really do think they should be held to a higher standard of scrutiny.

 

Where I disagree (and I think this was more with what Jim had to say) is that Clinton has "no bearing" on this. Remember Clinton did go before the entire country & boldly claimed with pointed finger that he "did not have sexual relations" with Monica Lewinski.

 

I'm reserving judgment on the Palin situation right now. I'm curious to see if and when her camp responds. But this is looking to be a pretty ugly situation for her. And unlike others, I'm thinking this brings to an end any political aspirations she might have, particularly as it relates to a Presidential run.

 

And FWIW, your comment about Tina Fey/Tracy Morgan made me laugh out loud. :laugh:

As to Palin's position on family values now, I don't believe that what she did 20 years ago makes her a hypocrite. Perhaps it makes her someone with experience who has learned from her mistakes. If she did those things recently, then, indeed, she'd be a hypocrite to cite "family values" as a platform. In my mind, an actual affair would not affect what I believe would be her ability to hold a public office. I'd look negatively on the hypocrisy, and it would make me question her other platforms. But for ancient history, she'll not receive a criticism from me.

 

There, RTS...hell has frozen over because I defended Sarah Palin. :sssh:

 

As with what fkyw is saying, Bill Clinton is not a hypocrite for his behavior, as he didn't campaign on family values. It all goes to what the word "hypocrite" means. That does not mean that he was right for what he did or that he receives a free pass. It simply make him not a hypocrite.

What you are basically saying is that when liberals do something stupid, it isn't nearly as bad because of the moral views or how they portray them? :ohbrother:

 

How is putting family values to a high priority putting oneself on a higher pedestal? I think her critics paint her as putting herself on a high platform. I have never seen her claim to be so much more virtuous than the average person.

 

This happened over 20 years ago. Who cares? Like we haven't done something stupid or spur of the moment? Her doing this gives her no right to preach of family values?

 

I don't see why people are comparing the two but since we are lets look at the situations.

 

Palin: Was engaged from what I have read on this thread, had a one night stand and the following year got married and pregnant while she was in her 20's.

 

Clinton: Elected to the highest and most respectable office possible. Was already married, had a kid and getting head from an intern then lied in court about it.

 

I can see where you are coming from.

 

People don't like her as it is (and I am not her biggest fan) but they have something to rip her on so they will show no mercy. You adore Clinton so you are going to just brush it off to the side.

 

Wow.

So as long as you don't try to hold yourself to higher moral standards you get a free pass to wade in the pool of immorality? I am not a Clinton hater by any means and I hope Palin doesn't even run, but this arguement doesn't seem like it would make a liberal stand up and say, "Yes! This is what we stand for! Clinton's affair was OK because he claimed no moral ground!"

 

No, and no. What FKYW said is what I meant — when they pander to family values and screw up, they're not living up to the standards they have projected, and they are therefore hypocrites.

 

Plus, I couldn't give two craps about Bill Clinton or what he has done. It's irrelevant since he never once tried to pass himself off as some morals crusader.

 

I'm not saying it isn't as bad. But they don't come across as pandering hypocrites. If you make "family values" the basis of your platform don't you think it's safe to assume extra-marital affairs and cocaine use aren't part of the "family values" platform? If you answer no to that, then your last name must be Sheen. So yes, Palin brought extra scrutiny upon herself in issues such as these. Look at one of the thousands of times she has spoken publicly, it's not the media and/or her critics doing this. Palin wants to be the God-fearing face of the Christian Right, so she will get EVERYTHING that comes with that.

 

Read the entire thread or the actual story. It's ALSO alleged that she had an extra-marital affair and used cocaine.