Republican Morality

[DoggyStyle82]

OPne of the truest signs of being a staunch, conservative Republican is your public abhorrance of anything sexual while privately participating in the same or more debasede sexual deviance.

Prime examples

Newt Gingrinch

And Now........ Mark Foley, who was one of the leaders of the impeach Clinton movement and who wrote most of the legislation against internet predators while he was the proverbial "fox (news) in the henhouse".

Political dogma on either side belies common sense.

[shinerbock]

Prime Examples- Jim McGreevey, Bill Clinton, Mel Reynolds, Gerry Studds

[AXEAM]

OPne of the truest signs of being a staunch, conservative Republican is your public abhorrance of anything sexual while privately participating in the same or more debasede sexual deviance.

Prime examples

Newt Gingrinch

And Now........ Mark Foley, who was one of the leaders of the impeach Clinton movement and who wrote most of the legislation against internet predators while he was the proverbial "fox (news) in the henhouse".

Political dogma on either side belies common sense.

What's worst is that these guys claim to be the party of family values. Jesus warned us against their type always talking about god and morals but delight in evil.

[shinerbock]

So its better to be the party of no values, so nobody holds you to a standard...I see.

[AXEAM]

Please quit w/ the strawman questions....what's happening to the GOP is what's happening to Bush all bullsh#t will evenually come to light. Since you're always telling others to read Bob Woodward books, have you read his last book State of Denial?

[shinerbock]

You mean the one where the White House stopped giving him access because they were concerned he was taking a slanted view? Nah, I haven't read it yet. I'll probably just read Michael Moore's blog, its about the same thing.

[AXEAM]

More of your BS....first you agree w/ what he saids then when he holds Bush's feet to the fire you come up w/ crap like this.

[shinerbock]

You mean I respect his first non-partisan book in which he was given access to the administration? Yeah, I do.

Now he writes one that is blatantly anti-administration, and one that was written with a gaping lack of primary sources, so yeah, I do question this one.

Regarding the topic of this thread, I fail to see how Democrats are really the beacon of morality in this country. Maybe I'd understand if I happened to find $100,000 in my freezer.

[AXEAM]

Most Americans would rather money in the freezer then a congressman who claims to be against child molestation trying to seduce a little boy.....I notice not once in this thread did you say Mark Foley was wrong, your only response was to attack Dems and deflect attention away from the real issue.

[shinerbock]

Mark Foley is wrong. Its disgusting, I hope he goes to prison. I don't care if he's a Republican or not. My point is that when something like this happened, the immediate response on from the thread starter was to attack Republicans in general.

[AlphaFrog]

your only response was to attack Dems and deflect attention away from the real issue.

Hi pot, meet kettle.

[AXEAM]

Mark Foley is wrong. Its disgusting, I hope he goes to prison. I don't care if he's a Republican or not. My point is that when something like this happened, the immediate response on from the thread starter was to attack Republicans in general.

That's not true when the Dems (F)up again..and I'm sure one will..you can bet a thread would be started about it.

[shinerbock]

Well theres a difference between a thread being started, and one being started naming all democrats as morally corrupt. However, you can be assured I won't be starting a thread labeling all Dems as a certain way.

[AXEAM]

Well theres a difference between a thread being started, and one being started naming all democrats as morally corrupt. However, you can be assured I won't be starting a thread labeling all Dems as a certain way.

Like I said b/f I don't vote just one party I vote for the best canidate. In South Carolina there have been (3) real good Governors (since I've live there) two GOP and 1 Dem. The last Gop guy got screwed b/c he took the rebel flag from atop the sate house and the Dem got screw b/c he was a Dem in South Carolina. I have a dislike for Bush b/c of the dirty political tricks he pulled on John McCain (GOP) in the South Carolina ads and phone calls where they questioned his military back ground and his mental state.

[Wolfman]

Prime Examples- Jim McGreevey, Bill Clinton, Mel Reynolds, Gerry Studds


As far as I know none of these "offenders" cloak themselves with the mantle of Family Values and used this as a political strategy. We are al sinners but it's very precarious being a demagogue on these issues because we humans do have our weaknesses and they will be exposed, sadly to say.

The biggest sin I see the Republicans being a part of is the one that tripped up Satan: actually believing the hype that you are better than the Godless, libertine, anti-American Democrats. If you convince yourself of this then you'll be blinded by pride and slip into all kinds of unethical and immoral behaviour,justifying it on the grounds of the morality of your cause, God's cause. If you're a Christian and take the Bible seriously, and not simply for use as political slogans, then you know that we are all fallen beings, whatever political persuasion we may be. And if we put ourselves in the place of playing God, we'll be humbled. This is what I see happening to the GOP now. "Pride goeth before the fall."

[shinerbock]

I'm sure thats true for some, but there is no shortage of self-righteous Dems. Painting any group with one brush is a bad decision.

[AXEAM]

I'm sure thats true for some, but there is no shortage of self-righteous Dems. Painting any group with one brush is a bad decision.

What.. so every time a member of the GOP screws up your reponse is that the Dems do it to.....like Wolf said it's the GOP who proclaim to be so self rigtheous.

[DSTCHAOS]

The Republicans have long tried to paint themselves as the conservative voice of morality for this country. This is what makes all of these mishaps so noteworthy.

People are people and both Dems and Repubs are full of crap. But don't be the posterboy against child pornography, abortion, gay marriage and other weighty topics, claiming they weight down on the morality of this country, and then be exposed as a criminal or "social misfit" in your own right.

[DSTCHAOS]

Well theres a difference between a thread being started, and one being started naming all democrats as morally corrupt. However, you can be assured I won't be starting a thread labeling all Dems as a certain way.

Did this thread call Republicans morally corrupt and label all Republicans as a certain way?

[AXEAM]

The Republicans have long tried to paint themselves as the conservative voice of morality for this country. This is what makes all of these mishaps so noteworthy.

People are people and both Dems and Repubs are full of crap. But don't be the posterboy against child pornography, abortion, gay marriage and other weighty topics, claiming they weight down on the morality of this country, and then be exposed as a criminal or "social misfit" in your own right.

That would make a nice Campaign slogan....I like it.

[shinerbock]

If you'll notice, I was referring to the starter of the thread.

[DSTCHAOS]

I feel similarly about Dem and Repub politicians who speak out against illegal immigration but have illegal immigrants doing their landscaping or working their building contracts.

Hypocrisy knows no political party. But being from certain political traditions and platforms certainly makes your hypocrisy more interesting.

[DSTCHAOS]

If you'll notice, I was referring to the starter of the thread.

I noticed. Now answer my question.

[shinerbock]

"OPne of the truest signs of being a staunch, conservative Republican is your public abhorrance of anything sexual while privately participating in the same or more debasede sexual deviance."

Sounds a little broad, doesnt it?

[AXEAM]

"OPne of the truest signs of being a staunch, conservative Republican is your public abhorrance of anything sexual while privately participating in the same or more debasede sexual deviance."

Sounds a little broad, doesnt it?

No Doggy is talking about staunch conservative you also have moderate Conservatives like Colin Powel, John McCain and others.

[DSTCHAOS]

"OPne of the truest signs of being a staunch, conservative Republican is your public abhorrance of anything sexual while privately participating in the same or more debasede sexual deviance."

Sounds a little broad, doesnt it?

Only if you insist but do you really consider yourself to be a staunch, conservative Republican? Perhaps that blind political loyalty and moral outspoken(ness?) is what breeds the observation the OP had.

[DSTCHAOS]

No Doggy is talking about staunch conservative you also have moderate Conservatives like Colin Powel, John McCain and others.

Exactly.

"Everything's immoral...unless I do it in the privacy of my own home...it's okay if a successful businessman such as myself does it, but we can't let just ANYONE do it because this country will go to Hell...."

[shinerbock]

Staunch conservative is far from blindy partisan...most staunch conservatives I know are disenchanted with the republican party.

[DSTCHAOS]

Staunch conservative is far from blindy partisan...most staunch conservatives I know are disenchanted with the republican party.

Because? :)

[shinerbock]

Because its not that conservative. However, there is a big difference between being unimpressed with the current state of GOP politics, and voting or leaning democratic. I'll take a less conservative GOP over the weak stance of the DNC anyday.

[DSTCHAOS]

Because its not that conservative. However, there is a big difference between being unimpressed with the current state of GOP politics, and voting or leaning democratic. I'll take a less conservative GOP over the weak stance of the DNC anyday.


:D They want stricter morality and anti-government intervention and control? To be disenchanted should mean to forego party loyalty and instead vote based on political platforms.

Either way, both the Democrats and Republicans are the devil. Go Independent.

[DoggyStyle82]

My point in the post was that people who are imprisoned in political dogma, particularly of the self-righteous variety invariably fall because like Wolf said, we all fall prey to human frailty and taking the moral high ground has slippery slopes. Using such moral platitudes to pander to a base that you only plan to prostitute leaves you little wiggle room when your personal peccadillos come to light

Newt Gingrich was in an extra-marital affair and divorced his wife after she was diagnosed with cancer. Some family values. He left unwillingly.

Rush Limbaugh= drug addict, felon, and sexual predator (sex trips to the Dominican Republic to have sex with teenage girls).

Jim Wright lead formal impeachment hearings against Clinton. Had to resign when his adulterous affair came to light.

Tom Delay Rep Majority Leader leaves in disgrace due to multiple corruption charges.

As for most Democrats, they don't cloak themselves in Moral Dogma as part of their political strategy since as Anne Coulter-geist states, they are "godless". If Dems are Godless then what is the Republican leadership.

Those named republicans have been disengenuous in pandering to the true moral conservatives who make up the hard right wing of the party and leaving them used like a crack whore. Just like the Dems do to Black voters.

As my Pastor says, "don't play with God"


Lastly, as a man of conviction, I admire yours to a point, but sometimes you have to realize, that you cannot be right all of the time just because your talking points say that you are. When faced with incontroverable facts a reasonable and intelligent person would concede or even dialogue on some points. However, only a demagogue cannot see fault or error in himself and his views, nor the good and validity in his opponent. There is no growth nor enlightenment. Fanatics, fundamentalists, the intellectually lazy, and fools let slogans and dogma speak for them rather than rational thought.

[shinerbock]

Of course, my only contention is that equal amounts of corruption, moral indiscretion, etc...exists on the other side of the aisle. So long as you realize this, thats fine.

[06pilot]

So, because a few Republicans have gotten off the beatonpath, ALL Republicans are bad? That doesnt make much logical sence to me. Democrats have been taken care of by interns. They have had affairs ontheir wives. DOes that make all of them bad?

You cant stereotype a whle group of people because of a few. Thats what white people have been doing to us for years. Take the better road and dont be like that.

[DSTCHAOS]

Of course, my only contention is that equal amounts of corruption, moral indiscretion, etc...exists on the other side of the aisle. So long as you realize this, thats fine.


We're waiting for the staunch, conservative Republicans to realize this so they can stop beating America over the head with their "morality." :)

[DSTCHAOS]

So, because a few Republicans have gotten off the beatonpath, ALL Republicans are bad?

Yes. Thanks for visiting our wonderful thread.

[06pilot]

Thanks for having me.

[06pilot]

So where would I fit in? I considr myself a Consrvative Democrat. I am conservative because I am a Christian. I dont believe in homosexuality. I dont believe in hand outs. I believe in helping one lift himself by his own bootstraps. I believe in small governement involvment in peoples lives. I am a Democrat mainly because I do believe it is govt's responsibility to help the down troddin (To a certian degree). Ialso believe in a strong defense ( Guess thats another conservative view)

[DSTCHAOS]

So where would I fit in? I considr myself a Consrvative Democrat. I am conservative because I am a Christian. I dont believe in homosexuality. I dont believe in hand outs. I believe in helping one lift himself by his own bootstraps. I believe in small governement involvment in peoples lives. I am a Democrat mainly because I do believe it is govt's responsibility to help the down troddin (To a certian degree). Ialso believe in a strong defense ( Guess thats another conservative view)

Not with the topic of the thread. This is a very specific topic that highlights the irony of a political party affiliation with a particular moral platform. Only staunch, conservative Republicans need apply.

Christianity doesn't "require" conservativism. Especially if you know that there IS a difference between moral conservativism and political conservativism. You don't have to be pro-homosexuality to believe in human rights that don't discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Moreover, are Christians who aren't against homosexuality considered "bad Christians" now? The central and defining tenant of my faith doesn't require feeling a particular way about homosexuals. It doesn't require a particular political stance and certain moral stances should only be taken if they can be specifically supported by Scripture, as opposed to humans' interpretation of Scripture. The central tenant is the belief in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior--because He died so that I may be Saved--and a belief in a Living God.

Both conservatives and liberals with a grain of sense believe in helping people to help themselves, whether that means small or big government involvement. Only ultra-stingy conservatives in the upper echelon of income and wealth distribution truly believe in raw individualism believe it's "every human for his/herself." Only misguided liberals believe that handouts, and making people believe they are helpless victims, will work. Either case, the govt sponsored social welfare programs have overwhelmingly failed at helping people help themselves. If bipartisanism would give way to true human interest we'd probably be further ahead in terms of eliminating the poverty that is victimizing more helpless children than able bodied adults.

[DoggyStyle82]

Not with the topic of the thread. This is a very specific topic that highlights the irony of a political party affiliation with a particular moral platform. Only staunch, conservative Republicans need apply.

Christianity doesn't "require" conservativism. Especially if you know that there IS a difference between moral conservativism and political conservativism. You don't have to be pro-homosexuality to believe in human rights that don't discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Moreover, are Christians who aren't against homosexuality considered "bad Christians" now? The central and defining tenant of my faith doesn't require feeling a particular way about homosexuals. It doesn't require a particular political stance and certain moral stances should only be taken if they can be specifically supported by Scripture, as opposed to humans' interpretation of Scripture. The central tenant is the belief in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior--because He died so that I may be Saved--and a belief in a Living God.

Both conservatives and liberals with a grain of sense believe in helping people to help themselves, whether that means small or big government involvement. Only ultra-stingy conservatives in the upper echelon of income and wealth distribution truly believe in raw individualism believe it's "every human for his/herself." Only misguided liberals believe that handouts, and making people believe they are helpless victims, will work. Either case, the govt sponsored social welfare programs have overwhelmingly failed at helping people help themselves. If bipartisanism would give way to true human interest we'd probably be further ahead in terms of eliminating the poverty that is victimizing more helpless children than able bodied adults.

Touching and agreeing almost 100%. My point is that infusing political rhetoric with rigid religious dogma or the converse, infusing reilgious dogma with intractable political agendas, inevitably causes the polemicist to be in violation of their own tenets.

Shinerbock makes good points, but misses the point.. Pointing fingers is not an argument. Ad hominem platitudes do not further the conversation. Spouting party line talking points does not advance discourse. They only, obscure, deflect, and obsfucate. The debate is about leadership, not individuals. Democratic leadership is no more "moral" than republican leadership. However, they don't beat people over the head with "family values", demonize sexual minorities, or blame the other party for failing American morals and then participate in the very things that they decry. That is the essence of the thread

[DSTCHAOS]

Democrats are no more "moral" than republicans. However, they don't beat people over the head with "family values", demonize sexual minorities, or blame the other party for failing American morals and then participate in the very things that they decry. That is the essence of the thread


Correct. And again, you never said all Republicans are a particular way. You were making a generalization because the staunch, conservative Republican platform is a very strict and morally vocal one. This doesn't even mean that all staunch, conservative Republicans are a particular way.

Similarly, the Democratic platform would be highlighted as hypocritic if it was discovered that quite a few headliners were doing things in their private and public lives that contradicted the Democratic stance on certain issues.

[AXEAM]

So where would I fit in? I considr myself a Consrvative Democrat. I am conservative because I am a Christian. I dont believe in homosexuality. I dont believe in hand outs. I believe in helping one lift himself by his own bootstraps. I believe in small governement involvment in peoples lives. I am a Democrat mainly because I do believe it is govt's responsibility to help the down troddin (To a certian degree). Ialso believe in a strong defense ( Guess thats another conservative view)

I agree w/most of your post but let ask are you opposed to all goverment handouts or just the little bones thrown out to the poor? I'm not trying to start anything I just want to know how you feel on the issue.

[shinerbock]

Touching and agreeing almost 100%. My point is that infusing political rhetoric with rigid religious dogma or the converse, infusing reilgious dogma with intractable political agendas, inevitably causes the polemicist to be in violation of their own tenets.

Shinerbock makes good points, but misses the point.. Pointing fingers is not an argument. Ad hominem platitudes do not further the conversation. Spouting party line talking points does not advance discourse. They only, obscure, deflect, and obsfucate. The debate is about leadership, not individuals. Democratic leadership is no more "moral" than republican leadership. However, they don't beat people over the head with "family values", demonize sexual minorities, or blame the other party for failing American morals and then participate in the very things that they decry. That is the essence of the thread

However, in attempting to rationalize this argument, you're pointing your finger at the Republican party. By using terms such as "demonize," you're showing your personal bias. Simply saying that we don't agree with homosexuality could not be aptly described as "demonizing." Democrats consistantly try to portray Republicans as trying take away homosexual's "right" to marry, when in actuality the right never existed. Its like saying we're keeping engineers from practicing law. They simply don't fit the requirements. I also disagree...Democrats use morality all the time as a selling point, describing the GOP as a group which is dishonest and heartless. Again, its tough to be hypocritical when you don't stand for anything in the first place (see: Iraq).

[DoggyStyle82]

However, in attempting to rationalize this argument, you're pointing your finger at the Republican party. By using terms such as "demonize," you're showing your personal bias. Simply saying that we don't agree with homosexuality could not be aptly described as "demonizing." Democrats consistantly try to portray Republicans as trying take away homosexual's "right" to marry, when in actuality the right never existed. Its like saying we're keeping engineers from practicing law. They simply don't fit the requirements. I also disagree...Democrats use morality all the time as a selling point, describing the GOP as a group which is dishonest and heartless. Again, its tough to be hypocritical when you don't stand for anything in the first place (see: Iraq).

ok, then take that line out and respond specifically to the point at hand, not what others have done. Its been stated by DSTChaos and myself that Dems are not perfect either. This isn't even about them so take them out of the equation. Republicans, specifically, the social and religious variety, hold their party as the standard. What is your response to the failings of your leadership in moral and ethical issues?

BTW, I am a conservative, just not an idealogue entrenched in either parties b.s

[shinerbock]

Well the moral failings so far as we know involve Foley's misdeeds. Now, I don't really consider him to be among party leadership, but he has represented the GOP poorly. If it turns out that Hastert knew something and took little or no action when action was obviously appropriate, then I'd admit he has failed in both his capacity as a human being, a legislator, and a party leader. Personally, I think he has failed in general as a party leader. He has allowed the GOP in the house to be divided, and has not set a clear direction for the party or the country. My primary problem with the GOP at this point is that nobody is willing to play hardball, everyone is concerned with their own motivations. I think the only place where Democrats have shown any sort of unity or strength is in their hatred of the adminstration, and despite this lack of direction from the left, Hastert and Co. have not taken advantage. I'm not sure if you were interested in my thoughts on other immoral acts by republicans, but if you'll specify I'll respond. As for the party, this is what I'd like to see...

Strong leadership (both for the country and internally). Modern politicians don't seem to understand that when acting as a block, most obstacles can be overcome. Republicans will point to Bush's weakened stature, but fail to recognize that if they would continue to stand by him, it wouldn't be nearly as weak. Its similar to the debate on immigration, where politicians are concerned that if they take too tough a stand either way, they'll either lose their base or the hispanic community. What they fail to understand is that by taking a tough stand, they'll solidify their support, one way or another. By staying in the middle or wavering, you're likely not only to lose some of your base, but to fail in efforts to gain more moderate voters. Basically, get off the fence. The problem with politicians is that they're educated and prideful people. If you present a patriotic and honest campaign that appeals to Americans because of their love for this country (aka Edwards before Kerry made him his attack dog), I truly believe you'll generally win. However, politicians are of the sort that they simply cannot stand to sit idly by while being derided by opponents. Thus, they get pulled into a typical mudslinging election cycle. I'd love to see the GOP appeal to people on a level beyond "If you don't vote for us _______ will happen." Ask Reagan how that worked. Times were bad for most people, but his message was one of inspiration, and a lot of people loved him for it. Not everything has to be policy, sometimes it just comes down to leadership. When presented with people starving and those down on their luck, our greatest leaders haven't established new government programs, they've merely appealed to citizens, asking them to help those in need. People have asked me before how Christians can be against social welfare programs, and my general answer is that its not the government's responsibility, its ours. We've taken the burden off of Americans to act neighborly to one another, and placed it squarely on the government. Not only does it not work, it denies Americans the chance to fulfill their civic responsibilities. Alright, sorry for the tangent.

By the way, I'm pretty sure there is somebody coming up who's what I'd like to see in a leader, and his name is Mitt Romney.

[06pilot]

I agree w/most of your post but let ask are you opposed to all goverment handouts or just the little bones thrown out to the poor? I'm not trying to start anything I just want to know how you feel on the issue.

No I am not opposed to al government handouts. I wish instead of givng people something for nothing, the govenment teach people how to stand on their own two feet. I had to do it the next man can too. Being por is not an excuse to fail. Ther eare many stories of poor people that have made it big. It can be done if you believ ein yourself and a higher power. Thats what I believe anyway

[AXEAM]

No I am not opposed to al government handouts. I wish instead of givng people something for nothing, the govenment teach people how to stand on their own two feet. I had to do it the next man can too. Being por is not an excuse to fail. Ther eare many stories of poor people that have made it big. It can be done if you believ ein yourself and a higher power. Thats what I believe anyway

What about handouts for big business and sweet heart no bid contracts? I believe often times the powers that be will use the little set asides given to the poor as a smoke & mirrors ploy.

[shinerbock]

What about no bid contracts for minority companies (cough, Atlanta, cough)

[DSTCHAOS]

What about no bid contracts for minority companies (cough, Atlanta, cough)

You're still salty about that, eh? :)

[DSTCHAOS]

This was my 3rd attempt at trying to get myself to read shinerbock's long ass post. :( I'm sure I'm missing a pretty strong post but I can't get myself to read it. Sucks.

[AXEAM]

What about no bid contracts for minority companies (cough, Atlanta, cough)
Any idiot can see that when I asked the question to 06 that I never mention any race or ethnicity so that means I was speaking of all no bid contracts regardless of race or ethnicity. I notice in many of your post you seem to have issue w/ minorities, this reveals your true agenda

[DoggyStyle82]

Well the moral failings so far as we know involve Foley's misdeeds. Now, I don't really consider him to be among party leadership, but he has represented the GOP poorly. If it turns out that Hastert knew something and took little or no action when action was obviously appropriate, then I'd admit he has failed in both his capacity as a human being, a legislator, and a party leader. Personally, I think he has failed in general as a party leader. He has allowed the GOP in the house to be divided, and has not set a clear direction for the party or the country. My primary problem with the GOP at this point is that nobody is willing to play hardball, everyone is concerned with their own motivations. I think the only place where Democrats have shown any sort of unity or strength is in their hatred of the adminstration, and despite this lack of direction from the left, Hastert and Co. have not taken advantage. I'm not sure if you were interested in my thoughts on other immoral acts by republicans, but if you'll specify I'll respond. As for the party, this is what I'd like to see...

Strong leadership (both for the country and internally). Modern politicians don't seem to understand that when acting as a block, most obstacles can be overcome. Republicans will point to Bush's weakened stature, but fail to recognize that if they would continue to stand by him, it wouldn't be nearly as weak. Its similar to the debate on immigration, where politicians are concerned that if they take too tough a stand either way, they'll either lose their base or the hispanic community. What they fail to understand is that by taking a tough stand, they'll solidify their support, one way or another. By staying in the middle or wavering, you're likely not only to lose some of your base, but to fail in efforts to gain more moderate voters. Basically, get off the fence. The problem with politicians is that they're educated and prideful people. If you present a patriotic and honest campaign that appeals to Americans because of their love for this country (aka Edwards before Kerry made him his attack dog), I truly believe you'll generally win. However, politicians are of the sort that they simply cannot stand to sit idly by while being derided by opponents. Thus, they get pulled into a typical mudslinging election cycle. I'd love to see the GOP appeal to people on a level beyond "If you don't vote for us _______ will happen." Ask Reagan how that worked. Times were bad for most people, but his message was one of inspiration, and a lot of people loved him for it. Not everything has to be policy, sometimes it just comes down to leadership. When presented with people starving and those down on their luck, our greatest leaders haven't established new government programs, they've merely appealed to citizens, asking them to help those in need. People have asked me before how Christians can be against social welfare programs, and my general answer is that its not the government's responsibility, its ours. We've taken the burden off of Americans to act neighborly to one another, and placed it squarely on the government. Not only does it not work, it denies Americans the chance to fulfill their civic responsibilities. Alright, sorry for the tangent.

By the way, I'm pretty sure there is somebody coming up who's what I'd like to see in a leader, and his name is Mitt Romney.

A cogent, well reasoned post.

I'm not a republican, but I agree with you on what is wrong with politicians. You skipped the most important. To win, you have to sell your soul, to maintain, you have to become a slave to special interests (big business, lobbyists, minorities, etc) People can't lead because they are chasing the re-election cycle. It causes inertia and cronyism. Republicans are better at it because they have richer and better educated puppeteers. Democrats only cry and bleed better

[shinerbock]

The thing is, you don't have to sell out to win, you just can't half ass it. Americans are looking for strength, either play the game, or don't. A good candidate can run a clean, patriotic and inspirational campaign and win, I promise. The candidate just has to be strong enough to not resort to other tactics with the attacks start coming in.

As for Ax, yeah, I'm a racist. Sure bud. I brought up no bid contracts for minorities because dems constantly criticize the GOP for the same things they do on a regular basis. To big business or minorities, its still wrong.

[06pilot]

What about handouts for big business and sweet heart no bid contracts? I believe often times the powers that be will use the little set asides given to the poor as a smoke & mirrors ploy.

I am opposed to that as well

[06pilot]

A cogent, well reasoned post.

I'm not a republican, but I agree with you on what is wrong with politicians. You skipped the most important. To win, you have to sell your soul, to maintain, you have to become a slave to special interests (big business, lobbyists, minorities, etc) People can't lead because they are chasing the re-election cycle. It causes inertia and cronyism. Republicans are better at it because they have richer and better educated puppeteers. Democrats only cry and bleed better

I thought that was funny. Are politicians supposed to lead or are they supposed to represent their constituents? In other waords if I were a politician, it wouldnt matter my views. I would fight for the viewpoint of the people who elected me regardless of my personal opinion. That is selfless service. Is it reality? Unfortunantly no.

[shinerbock]

well, there is also a school of thought that your district elects you, as who you are, to represent them. Meaning they have put their efforts into you, and left it to your judgment to make a wise decision. Granted, I'm for representing your constiuency* but you're not there merely to be a puppet. I'm drunk, as well.

[AXEAM]

The house speaker (Dennis Hastert) was questioned today, so I quess we will find out who knew what and when in next week or two.

[PerroLoco]

Rev. Haggard anyone? Chief Priest of the Conservative Evangelicans, Bush's front man on the war against gay marriage is a closeted buggerer himself. Holy Pillow-biter Batman!!!!!!

[shinerbock]

Rev. Haggard anyone? Chief Priest of the Conservative Evangelicans, Bush's front man on the war against gay marriage is a closeted buggerer himself. Holy Pillow-biter Batman!!!!!!

You're an idiot. Doesn't represent most evangelicals, and little if any connection to the administration.

[AXEAM]

You're an idiot. Doesn't represent most evangelicals, and little if any connection to the administration.

He had several several meetings w/Bush, he also made frequent calls to the White House so to state that he had little connection to the administration is plain wrong.

[shinerbock]

I've met Bush. Rush Limbaugh's had conversations with Bush. Nancy Pelosi has probably had several meetings with Bush. This doesn't mean he has any significant connections to the administration, it means he's had some contact with the President. He's a leader of an organization, like say, PETA or the NAACP. However, I doubt you'd say leaders of those organizations were "connected to the administration."

[PerroLoco]

You're an idiot. Doesn't represent most evangelicals, and little if any connection to the administration.

Isn't the "elected" president of anything the "representative" of that organization? You really need to stop with the knee-jerk blanket apologies for those that are either wrong or hypocritical in the name of Republicanism. Please stop drinking the Kool-Aid and think for yourself. I don't defend ant Dem that is wrong, be it Howard Dean or John Kerry. Wrong is wrong whether in a Blue or Red state.

BTW, as an opponent of the legalization of gay marriage (an oxymoron), and a member of an evangelical church, it does my position no favor to have such miscreants undermining a position that I happen to share. Haggard should have recused himself knowing his proclivities for vice. A drug abusing sodomite is the antithesis of the positions that he was ordained for and elected to. As such, he needs to be above reproach. I don't exult in Haggard's difficulties, rather I pity him and the church movement that has been hurt by his misdeeds and will pray for the restoration of both.

[shinerbock]

When did I ever apologize for him. Simply because you're the leader of some sect of evangelical Christianity does not mean you're their voice. I think he's disgusting, try reading next time.

[AXEAM]

I've met Bush. Rush Limbaugh's had conversations with Bush. Nancy Pelosi has probably had several meetings with Bush. This doesn't mean he has any significant connections to the administration, it means he's had some contact with the President. He's a leader of an organization, like say, PETA or the NAACP. However, I doubt you'd say leaders of those organizations were "connected to the administration."

Man you really try your best to change reality w/ rhetoric. Peta nor the NAACP make frequent conference calls to the White House as did Haggard.

[shinerbock]

Please post what information you have regarding his connections to the White House...Lets see, he's a Christian leader, and Christians make up a large portion of the Republican party...You don't think Bush meets with leaders of black organizations, or environmental organizations? Of course he does, granted, he may not care for what they have to say, but he meets with leaders from a wide variety of groups. I have seen nothing which indicates that this guy had any role in the administration's plans for marriage. My pastor is against gay marriage, would his meeting with Bush be significant? People just do anything they can to tie some guy's downfall to Bush. The president of Penn was photographed with a guy dressed up as a bomber for halloween, I'm sure its only a matter of time before we find secret letters connecting her agenda to the Bush White House.

[AXEAM]

Please post what information you have regarding his connections to the White House...Lets see, he's a Christian leader, and Christians make up a large portion of the Republican party...You don't think Bush meets with leaders of black organizations, or environmental organizations? Of course he does, granted, he may not care for what they have to say, but he meets with leaders from a wide variety of groups. I have seen nothing which indicates that this guy had any role in the administration's plans for marriage. My pastor is against gay marriage, would his meeting with Bush be significant? People just do anything they can to tie some guy's downfall to Bush. The president of Penn was photographed with a guy dressed up as a bomber for halloween, I'm sure its only a matter of time before we find secret letters connecting her agenda to the Bush White House.

The connection is that he made weekly or bi-weekly conference calls to the White house and also consulted w/ members of the White house on Gay marriage,judicial appointments as well as steel tariffs. Haggard even bragged about the direct connections that he had w/ the White House, we all know that the White House will down play Haggard's connections now as they did w/ Jack Abramoff. Now to address another one of your mis-informed post, let me ask if the leader of an organization isn't the ultimate representative of that organization then who is?

[shinerbock]

AX, you still haven't posted your sources. From MSNBC...

Haggard, who had been NAE president since 2003, has participated in conference calls with White House staffers and lobbied Congress last year on Supreme Court nominees.

My best friend participates in conference calls with Karl Rove, I don't really see him as having an substantial connections to the administration or its policies. The simple fact is, trying to associate this guy with Bush is just juvenile and absurd. He's a Christian leader, and Bush meets with tons of them. He doesn't work for the White House, and even if he did, so what?

As for him being a leader, I think he probably is a leader of his church and whatever that group was. However, that group likely doesn't represent the majority of evangelical Christians I imagine, and therefore I highly doubt people could legitimately claim that he represents the majority of evangelical Christians. I fail to see how his conduct reflects upon anyone but himself.

[AXEAM]

AX, you still haven't posted your sources. From MSNBC...

Haggard, who had been NAE president since 2003, has participated in conference calls with White House staffers and lobbied Congress last year on Supreme Court nominees.

My best friend participates in conference calls with Karl Rove, I don't really see him as having an substantial connections to the administration or its policies. The simple fact is, trying to associate this guy with Bush is just juvenile and absurd. He's a Christian leader, and Bush meets with tons of them. He doesn't work for the White House, and even if he did, so what?

As for him being a leader, I think he probably is a leader of his church and whatever that group was. However, that group likely doesn't represent the majority of evangelical Christians I imagine, and therefore I highly doubt people could legitimately claim that he represents the majority of evangelical Christians. I fail to see how his conduct reflects upon anyone but himself.

I don't have time to look up the sources again...just do a yahoo search on Ted Haggard's connections to the White House.

[shinerbock]

I did, and thats what I got. Call this guy a hypocrite all you want, but trying to drag the administration through the mud on this is simply absurd.

[AXEAM]

I did, and thats what I got. Call this guy a hypocrite all you want, but trying to drag the administration through the mud on this is simply absurd.

Funny in the Rocky Mountain times and other yahoo news search I got that he made weekly conference calls to the White House where he consulted w/ members of the White house on several issues. ( issues I mentioned in my post above.) not saying you're lying but.....the facts say different....

[Wolfman]

The Haggard is sad (and tragic) on many fronts. The discourse has occluded some real interesting points:the real danger and ambivalence of the political realm for believers,and the implicit pastoral theology that undergirds many sectors of Christianity.

1) It's no accident that before Jesus was sent on his mission he was put through a time of trial, facing the wiles of Satan, not some cartoonish figure bit the spirit of this Age that dominates through the deceiving and appealing use of power, prestige,worldly wealth and hubris. Jesus faced this in his context, being promised the oikumene ("world," that, is the Roman Empire) if Jesus worshipped him. We live in this Age and we are fallen, whether "saved and filled with the Holy Spirit," atheist or Satanist;thus no one is immune from being caught up and blinded by worldly power and one's focus being taken away from God as one's life-giving and life-sustaining power in all aspects of life. If there's a maxin that should be in the Bible it is the one that says, 'Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. For Rev. Haggard, who started off as one motivated by God's Spirit and his person and ministry born of God's power, ends up viewing himself and thus his actions as an extension of his public self as Evangelical leader and leader in the culture wars. Then one cares more about Machiavellian concerns and not about the unity of person and persona,the integration of which in the acceptance of our common humanity in our falleness and absolute need for God's mercy everyday and, by extension, a more generous view of humanity at large as the recipient of God's mercy. Evangelicals want to exercise worldly power to effect godly change but it's a very dangerous and risky venture to them, like Homer Simpson working at the nuclear plant.

2) Haggard confesses that he has some life-long struggles that he warred with. It's a tragedy that,evidently, he did not have the non-judgmental pastoral support system to lay open his life to help him in his struggles;therefore his public persona as leader and the American "Great Man" image of
perfection which many Christians ascribe to took over and had to be sustained. But his real person is still there and there is an attempt to segment one's personality which will fail. It's not simply about wrong choices, lies and deception. In reality,the "acting out" is often the result of the pressure to maintain this hoax and the lies and deception to cover the false self. The greatest sin,in a sense, here is hubris. This way of being is more in line with the pretense and idolatry of Roman Imperial hubris and the cult of the emperors, which was both political and religious. The way of the cross and resurrection is diametrically opposed to this false Christian triumphalist vision of human personhood.Read 2 Corinthians 10-12,where Paul, living in light of the life of Jesus, boasts in his anti-resume of weakness, over against the so-called super apostles who claim to wield God-like powers through the Holy Spirit so that the Corinthians (and they!) see them as they would see the ruling powers of the Greco-Roman world,but in Jesus.To Paul this is anti-Christ.Paul boasts of his weakness so that God's power can rest on him, that he would know Jesus in his suffering so that GOD would raise him,not that he would receive worldly acclaim and power. We actually need to read and critically reflect upon the Bible prayerfully and honestly. This is the tragedy of this situation.

[Wolfman]

The Haggard is sad (and tragic) on many fronts. The discourse has occluded some real interesting points:the real danger and ambivalence of the political realm for believers,and the implicit pastoral theology that undergirds many sectors of Christianity.

1) It's no accident that before Jesus was sent on his mission he was put through a time of trial, facing the wiles of Satan, not some cartoonish figure bit the spirit of this Age that dominates through the deceiving and appealing use of power, prestige,worldly wealth and hubris. Jesus faced this in his context, being promised the oikumene ("world," that, is the Roman Empire) if Jesus worshipped him. We live in this Age and we are fallen, whether "saved and filled with the Holy Spirit," atheist or Satanist;thus no one is immune from being caught up and blinded by worldly power and one's focus being taken away from God as one's life-giving and life-sustaining power in all aspects of life. If there's a maxin that should be in the Bible it is the one that says, 'Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. For Rev. Haggard, who started off as one motivated by God's Spirit and his person and ministry born of God's power, ends up viewing himself and thus his actions as an extension of his public self as Evangelical leader and leader in the culture wars. Then one cares more about Machiavellian concerns and not about the unity of person and persona,the integration of which in the acceptance of our common humanity in our falleness and absolute need for God's mercy everyday and, by extension, a more generous view of humanity at large as the recipient of God's mercy. Evangelicals want to exercise worldly power to effect godly change but it's a very dangerous and risky venture to them, like Homer Simpson working at the nuclear plant.

2) Haggard confesses that he has some life-long struggles that he warred with. It's a tragedy that,evidently, he did not have the non-judgmental pastoral support system to lay open his life to help him in his struggles;therefore his public persona as leader and the American "Great Man" image of
perfection which many Christians ascribe to took over and had to be sustained. But his real person is still there and there is an attempt to segment one's personality which will fail. It's not simply about wrong choices, lies and deception. In reality,the "acting out" is often the result of the pressure to maintain this hoax and the lies and deception to cover the false self. The greatest sin,in a sense, here is hubris. This way of being is more in line with the pretense and idolatry of Roman Imperial hubris and the cult of the emperors, which was both political and religious. The way of the cross and resurrection is diametrically opposed to this false Christian triumphalist vision of human personhood.Read 2 Corinthians 10-12,where Paul, living in light of the life of Jesus, boasts in his anti-resume of weakness, over against the so-called super apostles who claim to wield God-like powers through the Holy Spirit so that the Corinthians (and they!) see them as they would see the ruling powers of the Greco-Roman world,but in Jesus.To Paul this is anti-Christ.Paul boasts of his weakness so that God's power can rest on him, that he would know Jesus in his suffering so that GOD would raise him,not that he would receive worldly acclaim and power. We actually need to read and critically reflect upon the Bible prayerfully and honestly. This is the tragedy of this situation.

[AXEAM]

The Haggard is sad (and tragic) on many fronts. The discourse has occluded some real interesting points:the real danger and ambivalence of the political realm for believers,and the implicit pastoral theology that undergirds many sectors of Christianity.

1) It's no accident that before Jesus was sent on his mission he was put through a time of trial, facing the wiles of Satan, not some cartoonish figure bit the spirit of this Age that dominates through the deceiving and appealing use of power, prestige,worldly wealth and hubris. Jesus faced this in his context, being promised the oikumene ("world," that, is the Roman Empire) if Jesus worshipped him. We live in this Age and we are fallen, whether "saved and filled with the Holy Spirit," atheist or Satanist;thus no one is immune from being caught up and blinded by worldly power and one's focus being taken away from God as one's life-giving and life-sustaining power in all aspects of life. If there's a maxin that should be in the Bible it is the one that says, 'Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. For Rev. Haggard, who started off as one motivated by God's Spirit and his person and ministry born of God's power, ends up viewing himself and thus his actions as an extension of his public self as Evangelical leader and leader in the culture wars. Then one cares more about Machiavellian concerns and not about the unity of person and persona,the integration of which in the acceptance of our common humanity in our falleness and absolute need for God's mercy everyday and, by extension, a more generous view of humanity at large as the recipient of God's mercy. Evangelicals want to exercise worldly power to effect godly change but it's a very dangerous and risky venture to them, like Homer Simpson working at the nuclear plant.

2) Haggard confesses that he has some life-long struggles that he warred with. It's a tragedy that,evidently, he did not have the non-judgmental pastoral support system to lay open his life to help him in his struggles;therefore his public persona as leader and the American "Great Man" image of
perfection which many Christians ascribe to took over and had to be sustained. But his real person is still there and there is an attempt to segment one's personality which will fail. It's not simply about wrong choices, lies and deception. In reality,the "acting out" is often the result of the pressure to maintain this hoax and the lies and deception to cover the false self. The greatest sin,in a sense, here is hubris. This way of being is more in line with the pretense and idolatry of Roman Imperial hubris and the cult of the emperors, which was both political and religious. The way of the cross and resurrection is diametrically opposed to this false Christian triumphalist vision of human personhood.Read 2 Corinthians 10-12,where Paul, living in light of the life of Jesus, boasts in his anti-resume of weakness, over against the so-called super apostles who claim to wield God-like powers through the Holy Spirit so that the Corinthians (and they!) see them as they would see the ruling powers of the Greco-Roman world,but in Jesus.To Paul this is anti-Christ.Paul boasts of his weakness so that God's power can rest on him, that he would know Jesus in his suffering so that GOD would raise him,not that he would receive worldly acclaim and power. We actually need to read and critically reflect upon the Bible prayerfully and honestly. This is the tragedy of this situation.

This is a very good post Wolf, the problem is as you stated when evangeclicals try to use worldly power to effect Godly change.
It just doesn't work that way, leave until Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's and until God the things that are of God,s.

[shinerbock]

AX, I didn't go to yahoo, i did a search on MSNBC (not a conservative network, btw) and got an article that said that. Anybody trying to connect this situation to Bush is reaching, horribly.

[AXEAM]

AX, I didn't go to yahoo, i did a search on MSNBC (not a conservative network, btw) and got an article that said that. Anybody trying to connect this situation to Bush is reaching, horribly.

Expand your search man.

[shinerbock]

I searched several different things on Google, and got almost entirely liberal blogs. The only reputable things I got were from Time, which basically only stated that perhaps the scandal could have a negative impact on evangelical turnout. There is simply nothing here that has much at all to do with the administration, other than the fact that Haggard was fairly popular among certain christians and groups, and that Haggard supported Bush and lobbied Congress.

[AXEAM]

I searched several different things on Google, and got almost entirely liberal blogs. The only reputable things I got were from Time, which basically only stated that perhaps the scandal could have a negative impact on evangelical turnout. There is simply nothing here that has much at all to do with the administration, other than the fact that Haggard was fairly popular among certain christians and groups, and that Haggard supported Bush and lobbied Congress.

Nothing about the weekly conference calls to the White House or nothing about consulting w/ thw White house about Gay marriage,judicial appointments or steel trariffs?

[shinerbock]

Whatever man, you're reaching and you know it. From the Rocky Mountain News

Haggard, who had been president of the evangelical association since 2003, has participated in conference calls with White House staffers and lobbied Congress last year on Supreme Court nominees.

Haggard visited the White House once or twice, Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto said Friday.

Sounds like somebody in the inner circle huh? Nobody is making this out to have any significant relations to the administration besides liberal bloggers, and apparently you. Its a sad story, I feel for the guy's family and church. To try and use it for some political gain is just stupid.

[AXEAM]

Whatever man, you're reaching and you know it. From the Rocky Mountain News

Haggard, who had been president of the evangelical association since 2003, has participated in conference calls with White House staffers and lobbied Congress last year on Supreme Court nominees.

Haggard visited the White House once or twice, Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto said Friday.

Sounds like somebody in the inner circle huh? Nobody is making this out to have any significant relations to the administration besides liberal bloggers, and apparently you. Its a sad story, I feel for the guy's family and church. To try and use it for some political gain is just stupid.

You are sad....very sad blinded by hatred and ignorance. You don't even have a concept of the truth, but the good thing is that all other rational people can do a search and read the story.

[shinerbock]

Haha, hatred and ignorance? You hate the President so much you're trying to connect him to a guy he had quite limited contacts with, and never had acted as an agency of the administration. Liberals can be so incredibly bitter.

[AXEAM]

Haha, hatred and ignorance? You hate the President so much you're trying to connect him to a guy he had quite limited contacts with, and never had acted as an agency of the administration. Liberals can be so incredibly bitter.

No one hates Bush. I just feel the same about him as I would anyone doing a bad job and it's a fact that the guy had connections to the White House just as Jack Abramoff did (and they weren't quite limited.) I'm surprise however that a guy who post such asinine things about minorities as you do is always stalking this forum. remember when you said the following Obama America's baby daddy or some other ignorant crap you posted, or ...my daddy hires well dress well spoken blacks or...a name like keyshawn won't work in corporate America...and I could go on and on...maybe you're a closet Tim Haggard who likes brothers.