# Massage ? Yes Release ? No



## Jimmy G (Mar 23, 2006)

From the you-can't-make-this-up file https://imageshack.us

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6115476.stm


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

It is hard to believe his denials on a lot of levels.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Ha, ha! 

Another hypocrite exposed.

Yeah, crystal meth is the sort of stuff you buy just to have around, not use. Maybe save it for friggin' Easter. What a laugh.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

He bought the drugs, but didn't use them.

He paid the gay prostitute for a massage, but didn't have sex.

What's next, the Bible isn't 100% true?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Wait....I thought sex was a personal issue? What did I miss?


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Is this about our last President, the one who didn't inhale and the one who didn't have sex with that woman?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Wait....I thought sex was a personal issue? What did I miss?


Do you really need to be told what you missed?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The greater sin is our morbid fascination and glee watching a hypocrite and pharisee fall. There are true and godly men and women working long hours to feed the hungry, protect the unprotected and live the word of Jesus, the Buddha, Moses etc. Sometimes they are martyred by a bullet or the simple ravages of their tasks. They don't wear fancy jewelry, project their beautific smiles via satalite from some shoping mall sized church or have access to a president's ear. Golden Bulls come in many forms.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Wait....I thought sex was a personal issue?


It is unless you happen to make it the core of your public message, as was the case here if I am not mistaken.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Wait....I thought sex was a personal issue? What did I miss?


Perhaps but, when the act is committed by a male, with a male prostitute and the subject just happens to be an official in the Church..."I don't think we're in Kansas anymore Toto!"


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

No one has defended Haggard's actions or attempted to excuse them. The church where he served as a minister has investigated and removed him according to their by-laws. That seems like accountability to me. 

Also, the 'escort' has failed a lie detector test; all of his charges cannot be taken at face value. He has admitted that he is acting out of political motivation.


----------



## mack11211 (Oct 14, 2004)

The story has advanced.

Pastor Dismissed for 'Sexually Immoral Conduct'

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/...&en=af2147991d1113c8&ei=5094&partner=homepage

So his church does think there is some sex in it.

This [Sunday] morn, a statement from Haggard will be read to his congregation. Wonder what it will say.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Ah now I remember what I'm missing.....this guy has a public persona of the religious right and he is not Bill Clinton. Again, the thread is developing in a typical manner. All the lefties/liberals finding umbrage with my comment and lining up like birds on a wire.

For the record, I did not care about Bill's living humidor, I do not care about the woes of this obviously self-hating, drug using gay man. In fact, I find him quite pitiful. Mutually agreeable sex between people over the age of consent is really none of my business, paid for or not, no matter what their political leaning. I wish more people would leave political leanings out of their decision on who gets a private life, and who does not.

Cheers


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Some of the people who have responded to this are not all that liberal.

This minister set himself up for all the attention by so publicly lobbying against people who do what he himself did in private.

If you have "non-family" values behavior in your skeleton closet, perhaps you should not be throwing stones at other people who do the same things you are doing. I won't even begin to mention how this guy's acting out is probably devastating his wife and children.

I am certainly no knee jerk liberal and I find this guy to be disgusting. Especially when he used the same God I worship to spew his venom.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Yes, this is the crux of the matter for me. Personally, I couldn't care less if the guy wanted to have sex with men and get high while doing it. (Does that make me a Libertarian?) But a central message from him to his congregation railed against precisely this kind of action. So: hoisted by his own petard. Ahem.



forsbergacct2000 said:


> Some of the people who have responded to this are not all that liberal.
> 
> This minister set himself up for all the attention by so publicly lobbying against people who do what he himself did in private.
> 
> ...


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Also, I am religious and attend services every Sunday.

1. A certain level of respectable behavior and life style should be practiced by a minister.

2. This hypocrite was making a great living by inflaming people against behavior that he obviously did not consider all that bad.

I'm a little disturbed by people on the liberal side who find glee in this sad situation, though, too.

The people who are the biggest victims are this man's wife and children. Only she knows if he's worth keeping around.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Yes, this is the crux of the matter for me. Personally, I couldn't care less if the guy wanted to have sex with men and get high while doing it. (Does that make me a Libertarian?) But a central message from him to his congregation railed against precisely this kind of action.* So: hoisted by his own petard. Ahem.*


Oh I totally agree the guy is a first class hypocrite and is certainly being hoisted on his own petard. I also agree it is just human nature to find a certain justice or satisfaction when this happens, especially to someone we tend to disagree with.

My point (as usual) is just for all of his Interchange judges not to be hypocrits and hold him to a different standard than what you would hold those with political views one tends to agree with. Most politicians, heck, most people, could get hoisted on their own petards at one time or another, we should just hold everyone in politics or the public policy world to the same standard IMO. Meaning if one guy you tend to back gets a pass on a certain topic, be damn well sure to extend that same pass to someone you disagree with. If you are anti-school vouchers, make damn well sure you insist your representatives send their kids to the public school system in their area, not a private school. If you view yourself as religious and a "family values" type, insist your representatives show good moral character and live all the values your religion promotes.

I have stated here numerous times I am 110% for civil unions between gays, I really do not back any anti-gay measures. This guy's public agenda is not my own. However, if the ex-Prez can get a pass on sex and drug use, and the current Prez on ETOH and drug use, this guy should get the same pass within the realm of public policy. What his church does to him is a different story.

Just my (sure to be disagreed with) thoughts.

Regards


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Oh I totally agree the guy is a first class hypocrite and is certainly being hoisted on his own petard. I also agree it is just human nature to find a certain justice or satisfaction when this happens, especially to someone we tend to disagree with.
> 
> My point (as usual) is just for all of his Interchange judges not to be hypocrits and hold him to a different standard than what you would hold those with political views one tends to agree with. Most politicians, heck, most people, could get hoisted on their own petards at one time or another, we should just hold everyone in politics or the public policy world to the same standard IMO. Meaning if one guy you tend to back gets a pass on a certain topic, be damn well sure to extend that same pass to someone you disagree with. If you are anti-school vouchers, make damn well sure you insist your representatives send their kids to the public school system in their area, not a private school. If you view yourself as religious and a "family values" type, insist your representatives show good moral character and live all the values your religion promotes.
> 
> ...


You are right in theory. However, just where do we find these public figures who are not hypocrites to some degree? In this country we tend to settle. I mean, in the past two presidential elections I could not understand either side being terribly excited about the choices -- it was necessary to choose one, sure, and it was certainly possible to _dislike_ one of the choices more than the other, but the people who worked themselves into a froth in favor of one of the candidates baffled me. I saw it as choices between unappealing candidates on both sides.

I think a distinction needs to be drawn between a public figure being shown to be a flawed human being and being one who actively campaigns against a behavior that, it turns out, he secretly engages in. To my knowledge, Bill Clinton did not campaign on an anti-blowjob platform. What he did was stupid, but he had not made it a point to tell people that oral-sex aficionados and adulterers were condemned to eternal damnation and that he and his followers were morally superior to those who engage in such activities and that, in essense, we were free to judge such people as being inferior and even hate them. I believe Clinton was neutral in regard to people's sex lives. Thus there was the stupidity of doing this when he knew there were people who wanted to attack him for _something_, and there was the unsavory aspect of him being one in power cavorting with a (willing) intern, but he wasn't a hypocrite.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> My point (as usual) is just for all of his Interchange judges not to be hypocrits and hold him to a different standard than what you would hold those with political views one tends to agree with.(...)However, if the ex-Prez can get a pass on sex and drug use, and the current Prez on ETOH and drug use, this guy should get the same pass within the realm of public policy.


Indeed. And, contrary to what you claim, I see nobody here, leftist or otherwise, who says differently. Nobody here has called for him to be put in prison, jailed or even merely tried. People have just pointed at the hypocrisy, which was not present in the Clinton case with which you attempt a parallel (Clinton had no public anti-blowjob agenda that I know of).

You seem to make a habit lately of personalising the exchanges on this forum (attacking people in person and not for their views, claiming that many people here are intellectually dishonest) with little relevance. I personally find this highly unsavory.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Indeed. And, contrary to what you claim, I see nobody here, leftist or otherwise, who says differently. Nobody here has called for him to be put in prison, jailed or even merely tried. People have just pointed at the hypocrisy, which was not present in the Clinton case with which you attempt a parallel (Clinton had no public anti-blowjob agenda that I know of).


Nor was Clinton attempting to have legislation introduced that deprived adulterers of the full protection of the law. However, I still believe Clinton should have resigned when the Lewinsky scandal exploded. It would have been far preferable to the absurd Starr inquisition and impeachment proceedings.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Lushington said:


> Nor was Clinton attempting to have legislation introduced that deprived adulterers of the full protection of the law. However, I still believe Clinton should have resigned when the Lewinsky scandal exploded. It would have been far preferable to the absurd Starr inquisition and impeachment proceedings.


I have to disagree, there was no need to resign for marital infidelity. Clinton should have just told the truth when he was caught, thus negating the Starr episode. Impeachment for lying about oral sex was just foolish IMO. Everyone involved should be ashamed.

The parallel to Clinton and the current case is inexact. Sorry if people are drawing the conclusion that this was my thesis. My thesis is to ask the question, where are all those people that defended Clinton saying sex is personal and thus off limits? They are, of course, silent or busy pointing out the hypocrisy they failed to point out in the Clinton case.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

crs said:


> To my knowledge, Bill Clinton did not campaign on an anti-blowjob platform. What he did was stupid, but he had not made it a point to tell people that oral-sex aficionados and adulterers were condemned to eternal damnation and that he and his followers were morally superior to those who engage in such activities and that, in essense, *we were free to judge such people as being inferior and even hate them.*


Is this what Haggard did?

The statement was made above that Haggard was condemning what he apparently didn't think was that big a deal as he was engaged in it himself. I suspect that Haggard does think it a big deal and does think it morally wrong. Have any of you ever engaged in behavior that you find morally wrong? The problem these days is that it's a lot easier to say nothing is morally wrong rather than face up to our individual failings.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I suppose you're right Alan. It is probably best to let God judge the sinner.

I just wish he had not inserted himself into such a prominent position while he was doing what he was doing privately. Christianity takes an undeserved beating by a lot of liberal people and this just gives them something to pile onto.

I truly wish this man had used better judgement.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Clinton should have just told the truth when he was caught, thus negating the Starr episode. Impeachment for lying about oral sex was just foolish IMO.


I agree with you completely.



> The parallel to Clinton and the current case is inexact. (...)My thesis is to ask the question, where are all those people that defended Clinton saying sex is personal and thus off limits? They are, of course, silent or busy pointing out the hypocrisy they failed to point out in the Clinton case.


I don't get your mock-puzzlement. If you agree that the two cases are quite different, why wonder why people react to them differently?


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I just wish he had not inserted himself into such a prominent position while he was doing what he was doing privately. ...I truly wish this man had used better judgement.


I think this would be universally agreed with, especially by Haggard.

Honestly, I was not familiar with Haggard before this happened, nor am I a member of the organization he headed. No one condones what he did, both the organization and the church held him accountable and have made no excuses for him that I have seen. His failings have no bearing on whether what he preached was true or not, although clearly his actions have seriously undermined the impact of his message.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I have to disagree, there was no need to resign for marital infidelity. Clinton should have just told the truth when he was caught, thus negating the Starr episode. Impeachment for lying about oral sex was just foolish IMO. Everyone involved should be ashamed.
> .


Perhaps I was unclear. I didn't say Clinton should have resigned when the scandal broke; he should have resigned when the scandal exploded, with the allegations of perjury and Starr inquisition. Tactically, it would have been far more intelligent to do so and it would have given Gore a boost for 2000. If there were a true functioning party apparatus, it would have insisted that Clinton step down in favor of Gore. Gore would not have been a challenger or a lame duck in 2000; he would have been the sitting incumbent, and he could have had a solid two years to act as "the healing President." I'm convinced it would have worked. Sure, it didn't work for Ford, but circumstances were much different in '76

As for Haggard: he'll land on his feet. This kind of scandal is the bread and butter of the ol' tyme religion. He'll spend his time in the desert, and then he'll resurface with a new congregation and a newly affirmed "relationship with Christ." He'll do fine. And doesn't he look kind of like Dick York?

Perhaps Pastor Haggard was Bewitched?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> I don't get your mock-puzzlement. If you agree that the two cases are quite different, why wonder why people react to them differently?


Because I think if your defense of Bill was, "So what he lied? He just lied about sex!" you should mount a similar defense of Haggard. What is good for one is good for the other IMO.

And yes Lush, he's a wringer for York....I'll never look at "Darren" quite the same again.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Wait a minute- Jerry Lee lewis is Jimmy Swaggart's cousin. Could it be this Haggart is related to Merle?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Wayfarer,

Perhaps if Haggard lied under oath then the Lefties would defend him. The whole episode is just sad. I don't agree with Haggard's politics or position on gay rights but the glee so many seem to take from his pain and the pain he has caused his family is bizzare, Haggard was a hypocrite but so are those who choose not to extend some compassion and forgiveness.

Karl


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Karl89 said:


> Wayfarer,
> 
> Perhaps if Haggard lied under oath then the Lefties would defend him. The whole episode is just sad. I don't agree with Haggard's politics or position on gay rights but the glee so many seem to take from his pain and the pain he has caused his family is bizzare, Haggard was a hypocrite but so are those who choose not to extend some compassion and forgiveness.
> 
> Karl


You're smarter than that. The glee some people are taking has to do with some finger-wagging busybody being tripped up by the exact thing he preached against. I personally feel no glee -- but then people of my sexual persuasion have not been having their rights trampled by people claiming to have some moral authority from God to trample them. It's bizarre that you have to perceive this as a left-vs.-right issue when it isn't. You are knee-jerking: conflict ... must ... criticize ... liberals.


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

AlanC said:


> I think this would be universally agreed with, especially by Haggard.
> 
> Honestly, I was not familiar with Haggard before this happened, nor am I a member of the organization he headed. No one condones what he did, both the organization and the church held him accountable and have made no excuses for him that I have seen. His failings have no bearing on whether what he preached was true or not, although clearly his actions have seriously undermined the impact of his message.


He has become the message.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Because I think if your defense of Bill was, "So what he lied? He just lied about sex!" you should mount a similar defense of Haggard. What is good for one is good for the other IMO.


Again, sex was not a core issue of the public persona of the former when it was for the latter. You admit that since you accept that there is no parallel between the two situations. Yet you don't accept that this difference is enough to warrant different reactions. Very odd.

The people who defended Clinton, on the whole, said that what he did was privately despicable but no basis for an impeachment. The same people say here that what Haggard was privately despicable. They don't have to go any further: nobody sued him (yet) or asked for him to be impeached. I still don't get your mock-puzzlement.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

m kielty said:


> He has become the message.


Or is that massage? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The decapitated body of Father Poulos Eskandar was laid to rest in Mosul today, 3 days after his kidnappers demanded $350,000 USD and posted repudiations to the Pope's remarks be posted at the church. Father Eskandar, a Syrian Orthodox priest died a few days after a 14 y/o boy was crucified by moslem assailants, several christian women raped and other priests briefly kidnapped. Hands empty bucket to moderators and towels to this thread's participants.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Kav,

Just remember that Fundamentalist Christians are just as dangerous as Fundamentalist Muslims. Or so a lot of people would tell us. Something tells me that Haggard's former church won't execute him for being a homosexual though he wouldn't be so lucky in Iran. Its awfully sad that the gay community has time to condemn people like Haggard while forgetting about their brothers and sisters in the Middle East. Don't hold your breath for Larry Kramer or Tony Kushner to write a p;ay about Islamofascism, after all at least the Islamofascists aren't Republicans!

Karl


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

Kav said:


> The decapitated body of Father Poulos Eskandar was laid to rest in Mosul today, 3 days after his kidnappers demanded $350,000 USD and posted repudiations to the Pope's remarks be posted at the church. Father Eskandar, a Syrian Orthodox priest died a few days after a 14 y/o boy was crucified by moslem assailants, several christian women raped and other priests briefly kidnapped. Hands empty bucket to moderators and towels to this thread's participants.


I'm not sure what you are saying.
Are you saying God condones murder and refuses to come to the aid of those who are weak?
And a preacher who gets a massage and some drugs is a minor issue?


----------



## Newton (Oct 6, 2006)

Hopefully this issue will cause Haggard's church to slightly change their stance on homosexuality.

I think it is a valid Christian position to believe that homosexuality is a sin. I do not believe it is a valid position to discriminate against someone on that basis.

Churches generally offer support to those who are struggling. Homosexuals should be included.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

crs said:


> You're smarter than that. The glee some people are taking has to do with some finger-wagging busybody being tripped up by the exact thing he preached against. I personally feel no glee -- but then people of my sexual persuasion have not been having their rights trampled by people claiming to have some moral authority from God to trample them. It's bizarre that you have to perceive this as a left-vs.-right issue when it isn't. You are knee-jerking: conflict ... must ... criticize ... liberals.


Have to agree with what crs has been saying. Haggard was/is a hypocrite. As a religious leader he has an obligation to not condemn something to his congregation that he secretly takes part in. He lied to his followers who trust him.

I'm sure we all engage in the occasional hypocracy, we're human (even if we dress well). But we are not standing in a pulpit giving moral instructions to others.

Nah, I don't see the liberal connection here either.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

The biggest down side I see of this is that rather than come to the realization that there is nothing wrong with being gay, this guy will likely sign up for one of those bogus programs to "cure" him of his homosexuality.

Oh, and by the way, Kav, I think you're right about the Killer and Jimmy Swaggart. I seem to recall that he may also be related to Trent Lott, although I'm not sure about that.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

I thought it was funny how he claimed he had never used drugs, but somehow knew how to find the drug dealer. As a police officer, I'd love to interview him. Give him enough rope and his B.S. lies would surely hang him.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Again, sex was not a core issue of the public persona of the former when it was for the latter. You admit that since you accept that there is no parallel between the two situations. Yet you don't accept that this difference is enough to warrant different reactions. Very odd.
> 
> The people who defended Clinton, on the whole, said that what he did was privately despicable but no basis for an impeachment. The same people say here that what Haggard was privately despicable. They don't have to go any further: nobody sued him (yet) or asked for him to be impeached. I still don't get your mock-puzzlement.


Steven,

If you do not see why it rings hollow, we are just going around in circles. I understand I have become your special friend but after three trips around the May Pole, we are getting no where.

Regards


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> If you do not see why it rings hollow, we are just going around in circles.


You would have to be a little more specific than "it rings hollow" to make a valid argument.

And I have indeed noticed your special interest in my interventions and, occasionally in my person. Rest assured that it is very dimly reciprocated, at best. By the way, any particular reason you choose not to use my name?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Etienne,

Clinton was not impeached for tawdry sex but rather for lying under oath. Now perhaps the question should never have been asked but Clinton chose to lie rather than refuse to answer the question. And he lied to he American people when he repeatedly stated throught most of 1998 that he did not have sex with Lewinsky. 

Karl


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Kielty, I am saying there is something fundamentaly wrong when I go to morning church and hear a rumour of a Greek Priest being murdered in Iraq. Orthodox are big on naming all the saints and martyrs in remembrance thoughout the calender.We prayed for this priest not even knowing his name. I return home and learned the details via a websearch. For our supposedly christian based society to know the gay prostitute's name and face and not this man's is wrong. The Benny Hins, Swaggarts, Tammy Fay Bakers, Joe Olsteens, Doctor Gene Scotts et al ad nauseum and nauseous are a cancer. And any Christian knows you 'Hate the sin and not the sinner.'


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Etienne,
> 
> Clinton was not impeached for tawdry sex but rather for lying under oath. Now perhaps the question should never have been asked but Clinton chose to lie rather than refuse to answer the question. And he lied to he American people when he repeatedly stated throught most of 1998 that he did not have sex with Lewinsky.
> 
> Karl


Yes, Clinton committed his share of crimes, too. There has probably never been a US President who did not commit at least a few impeachable offences.


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

Kav said:


> Kielty, I am saying there is something fundamentaly wrong when I go to morning church and hear a rumour of a Greek Priest being murdered in Iraq. Orthodox are big on naming all the saints and martyrs in remembrance thoughout the calender.We prayed for this priest not even knowing his name. I return home and learned the details via a websearch. For our supposedly christian based society to know the gay prostitute's name and face and not this man's is wrong. The Benny Hins, Swaggarts, Tammy Fay Bakers, Joe Olsteens, Doctor Gene Scotts et al ad nauseum and nauseous are a cancer. And any Christian knows you 'Hate the sin and not the sinner.'


What's fudamentaly wrong is that Christians hate the sinner and not the sin.
Probably because they are sinners to and don't want to cop to it.

We all want to believe we are part of the solution when in reality we are all part of the problem.

I agree the phony preachers are a cancer. It is in the foundation now and growing at an alarming rate.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

m kielty said:


> What's fudamentaly wrong is that Christians hate the sinner and not the sin.


That's quite a sweeping indictment of an entire group of people.



> Probably because they are sinners to and don't want to cop to it.


Any Christian ought to admit readily that he is a sinner, but has sought--and continues to seek--forgiveness. Very often the difference is that Christians are willing to accept that there are some things that are wrong, and have admitted that they have participated in those wrong things.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Clinton was not impeached for tawdry sex but rather for lying under oath.


I was under the impression that Clinton was not impeached, period.

Poor wording aside, I do not see the relevance of your remark. I was not discussing the Clinton impeachment (my discussion with Wayfarer was about reactions to it and his perception that there was a double standard with the reactions to Haggard, a claim I do not agree with).

If you wish to talk about the impeachment proper and claims of perjury, an entirely different subject, I cannot claim to know all the details and evidence in this very complex case. I am therefore inclined to trust the decision reached by the American judicial system that he was not guilty (a vote for "not guilty" of 55-45 in a Senate with a Republican majority if I remember correctly).


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> I was under the impression that Clinton was not impeached, period.


Your impression would be wrong. He was thoroughly impeached December 19, 1998. I disagree with his impeachment but one can not deny the fact that he was most certainly impeached.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Impeachment refers to the process of the trial itself. Pres. Clinton was impeached but not convicted.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

AlanC said:


> Impeachment refers to the process of the trial itself. Pres. Clinton was impeached but not convicted.


Okay, I was mistaken on the meaning of the word (please do keep in mind that English is not my native language).


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Clinton was impeached*



Wayfarer said:


> Oh I totally agree the guy is a first class hypocrite and is certainly being hoisted on his own petard. I also agree it is just human nature to find a certain justice or satisfaction when this happens, especially to someone we tend to disagree with.
> 
> My point (as usual) is just for all of his Interchange judges not to be hypocrits and hold him to a different standard than what you would hold those with political views one tends to agree with. Most politicians, heck, most people, could get hoisted on their own petards at one time or another, we should just hold everyone in politics or the public policy world to the same standard IMO. Meaning if one guy you tend to back gets a pass on a certain topic, be damn well sure to extend that same pass to someone you disagree with. If you are anti-school vouchers, make damn well sure you insist your representatives send their kids to the public school system in their area, not a private school. If you view yourself as religious and a "family values" type, insist your representatives show good moral character and live all the values your religion promotes.
> 
> ...


Clinton did not "get a pass," he was impeached.

Gurdon


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Gurdon said:


> Clinton did not "get a pass," he was impeached.
> 
> Gurdon


Funny Gurdon, out of all my post had to say, the only thing you felt worth disagreeing on was my Clinton comment. He did get a pass (and aquittal) on Monica, and got a clear pass on his many, many infidelities and some pretty substantial reports of, at the very least, borderline behavior towards some women. Eight years later he is treated like a rock star by the media where ever he goes and Ken Starr is a ruined man. QED.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Étienne said:


> Okay, I was mistaken on the meaning of the word (please do keep in mind that English is not my native language).


It's a common mistake, and very frequently one made by native speakers.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

We have a very nice Christian family that lives next door. He is a Baptist youth minister. They are not annoying and pushy.

However this guy is the epitome of the evangelical Christians that condemn and criticize anyone that does not have the exact same beliefs.

The problem is that a very vocal minority of Christians have decided to modernize the Bible because they don't like the fact that in the US everybody can mostly do what they want. I think this is their favorite Bible verse:

_If my people, which are called by my name,
shall form political action committees,
and vote straight Republican,
and condemn abortion, homosexuality, and all premarital sex as evil,
and complain to the FCC about any sexual innuendos on television,
and seek to ban morning after pills, birth control and HPV vaccines and all other sexually liberating medical breakthroughs,
and legislate that all non-believers are subject to Christian prayer in public schools,
and condemn all other religions and denominations other than their own as false,
then I will hear from heaven,
and will forgive their sin,
and will heal their land. 
*
II Chronicles 7:14 KJV
*_


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

android said:


> We have a very nice Christian family that lives next door. He is a Baptist youth minister. They are not annoying and pushy.
> 
> However this guy is the epitome of the evangelical Christians that condemn and criticize anyone that does not have the exact same beliefs.
> 
> ...


Before we moved a little more than a year ago, we lived next door to such a family for seven years, and I believe their lack of pushiness to some extent stemmed from their knowledge that in our blue state they were significantly outnumbered. They were perfect neighbors, I just wouldn't want members of that family running the country or the Supreme Court, that's all, because they don't seem to take the U.S. Constitution as literally as they take the Bible. So while we gladly gave them the keys to our house and vice versa, I would not have voted for them if they had sought public office. Nothing personal. But had they sought public office, neither would I have tolerated someone trying to demonize them because of their views.


----------

