I guess the reason his party affiliation is being raised at all is because of the hypocrisy of these so-called social/family value conservatives.

This is just crazy; having high moral standards is not a bad thing, and having low or no moral standards is not a good thing. People who believe in family values aren’t perfect, but the Marxist lefties try to enforce perfection while having no moral standards themselves, and trying to assert superiority because of it.

I guess the reason his party affiliation is being raised at all is because of the hypocrisy of these so-called social/family value conservatives.

I’m going to stop there.

I am glad that he reconciled with his wife and has gotten counseling. In that respect, I wish him the best.

To err is human, to forgive is divine. Whoever said that is so right. I think he is deserving of forgiveness.

AngryV: Liberals love to play with words… bend the language. Thus government-controlled health care becomes “healthcare reforms”. State control of industry becomes a “stimulus package”. The murder of the pre-born becomes “freedom of choice”. See how that works?

In his prophetic novel, 1984, Goerge Orwell called it ‘new-speak’.

You couldn’t reply to my point could you Proof? Since Rob chooses a dishonest, propagandist term instead of a more accurate term then I’m correct (even Wing’s was more accurate). You’re a stickler for wording so you’ll know I’m right.

Regarding RPDS, I have a condescending attitude to conservatives, so Rob’s dishonesty causes no derangement. One of my brothers was a care-worker for a while, and one of his clients was preverbal, and used to masturbate shamelessly and many, many times a day. Conservatives are the next step up in intellect from preverbals, but still far behind moderates and liberals.

And good job!! Y’all got sanni crying and ratshitting in 4 threads already. Now complain about how people are not nice to you, lying assed cunt.

While I generally agree with most of your posts, I think that I have to disagree this time. While an affair is repugnant (no, I’ve never had one), I also believe people aren’t flawless.

My feeling is that if he came clean with his spouse before he was caught and she forgave him (after all, I’d rather face the voters than my injured wife) then I think he deserves another chance.

On the other hand, if he was caught first and THEN came clean, well that’s a different story. I don’t really know the details here so I can’t say. But I know in John Edwards case, he shouldn’t be trusted any longer. If Ensign only came clean (pardon the pun) after he was caught, then he should lose his political office.

If infidelity is a reason for firing a politician then 99% of those in DC should be gone on both sides/ when it was CLinton and teddy boy the the democrats called it a witch hunt but the Republicans When it is one of the Republicans they want a full scale riot to get them out of office If you want to hold to the idea that if they lie in their marrage they can’t be trusted in office why do the voters keep them in office ( Kennedy not only cheated but was involved in a death of the one he cheated with- Frank who knows he has shown can’t be trusted inother ways as well

Well hey that isn’t as bad as some of the other crap we have seen lately, the moron Larry Craig tapping his shoes in the MPLS Airport bathroom just to name one incident off the top of my head. Ofg course the left will use this as a distraction to put their marxist programs through.

Ensign came forward because he was being blackmailed.

John Edwards cheated on his wife while promoting a campaign narrative in which he portrayed himself (with Mrs. Edwards’s cynical collaboration) as the devoted husband of his cancer-stricken wife. Now that’s hypocrisy. From the available evidence, John Ensign is nowhere near as bad a hypocrite as John Edwards. How’s that for faint praise?

-James Taranto

it seems to me that when you commit yourself to someone and then you betray that commitment you’ve given up any right to be trusted by other people ever again.

I agree with you, but this doesn’t seem to phase democrats. They can even crash cars off of bridges killing their mistress and still keep getting re-elected for more than 40 more years.

Although I do not think his behavior is right…

At least he is honest by addressing it directly and taking responsibility for his actions….

A little different than Bill…”I did not have sexual relations…” Clinton or Elliot Spitzer who forced to do so..

The Nevada Republican once called on President Bill Clinton to resign, declaring “the truth must come out.” In October 2007, he was sharply critical of former Sen. Larry Craig, of Idaho, calling the Republican’s arrest in an airport bathroom sex sting “embarrassing for the Senate.”
Enough to piss you off.

Shayne if the Dems had to suffer the consquences like the Right I would be all for it but they just don’t have to resign when they get caught, Barney Frank and Kennedy should have been out of office a long time ago for their troubles they are still there.

nothing like putting him on a pedestal.

…how gays can’t marry because they’ll ruin it…

Be honest, Rob; that’s not the argument at all. Homos can’t be married, because what they do isn’t marriage. All activists like you can do is to use the courts to force a redefinition of the word “marriage” on the vast majority of normal Americans.
This is just another strawman to distract from your very uneven moral judgments. You want to destroy a guy’s career over an affair, but those who cause destruction on a daily basis are protected and absolved of the responsibility for the consequences of their stupid and destructive actions.
Why the double standard?

I can have the legislature declare you a giraffe, Rob, but that doesn’t make you one.
You keep choosing ideology over human reality.

Rob, for example, lies all the time.

RPDS strikes a liberal every four seconds!

from what I read on another blog, he and his wife were actually separated at the time. Also the husband of the woman came to him looking for “hush” money, so he decided to admit to it publicly.

I’ll give him points for that at least.

Rob:

I’m not much of a social conservative, but it seems to me that when you commit yourself to someone and then you betray that commitment you’ve given up any right to be trusted by other people ever again.

So then you don’t believe in the possibility of forgiveness and redemption?

If you don’t want to go with the simplicity of Jesus’ watered down statement about turning the other cheek, then go with one of his fellow Jews at the time, Hillel, who was famous for the golden rule statement, “that which is repugnant to you, do not do to others”.

You would find all paths to forgiveness and redemption being closed to be repugnant to you were you in that position. Deep down, all the confusions and naivete and ignorance and anger and fear pared away, you know that you want a way back. You’d howl in pain for the doors being shut in your face and rage that it was so unfair.

When you pledge to honor and cherish in sickness and in health that applies to mental and emotional sickness as well. You do not pledge yourself simply for what you think you can get out of them, but things they have never been and might not ever be. You pledge yourself for what the two of you could be together. Turn your back and you will never achieve that and thus you break your pledge equally.

The test is to transcend all that and learn to admit the true nature of you by that rule, that what you most dearly would want and need you should wish for and have and so you must be willing to give it before you can receive it.

The question is, will you even remain open to the possibility of them being honestly penitent in their hearts or close off that possibility by turning a hard heart to them strictly because of your own feelings, which you can by will alone turn away as and when you wish. Since they are so transitory and fickle and subject to your will, it would follow then that they are less important than those of the other person who you cannot control and cannot assume have control of their own.

The true disaster of our modern times when so much information is to be had and so little understanding of the meaning of any of it. How little people understand that the very concept of G-d and all that is a mutual assured survival system to keep the law of the jungle at bay, when as predators go most are so pathetic at it and much better off not tempting its return. No one accused the human race of being so very wise as they are smart though which is I suppose why wisdom is so startling and frightening that people put it in books that gather dust and are only remembered by the eccentric and the old.