I suspect he hit the wrong contact when it got sent. He meant to send it but not to her.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: No, hoser. I'm calling people out for being HYPOCRITES. Evidently, he only cares when it is a Republican, NEVER when it's a Democrat. Geez.

I'm sure the conservatorium will be all over the helicopter riding governor soon, as they are never hypocritical.

quote Originally posted by newf: I'm sure the conservatorium will be all over the helicopter riding governor soon, as they are never hypocritical.

Sure one of the libs will post it soon.
I will take the same path as one of them did on here.
I will post a link with a lot of pics of cool helicopters!

quote Originally posted by newf: I'm sure the conservatorium will be all over the helicopter riding governor soon, as they are never hypocritical.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: Sure one of the libs will post it soon.

No doubt.

The capacity for self delusion by some (seemingly) fairly intelligent people is both amazing and dismaying.
A little perspective would seem to be in order here:
1) The alleged recipient of the (alleged) Weiner photo is an adult, at least 21 years of age.
2) She is apparently a member of the same species, and the opposite sex. She is not an employee of Mr. Weiner.
3) Mr. Weiner did NOT base his political career on being a Bible thumping, born again, sex hating, gay hating, holier than thou "family values" Christian conservative.
4) No taxpayer dollars seem to have been used in this alleged flirtation.
5) Only a small, mean spirited, very vocal minority of people who don't even have a dog in this hunt really care, along with some media types who care only because it's a slow news week, politically.

I hope that helps to explain my lack of interest in this and most of the other Tea Bagger rants that seem to have taken over this particular part of Pennocks fine forum lately.

Happy now?

Although I know I shouldn't feed these trolls, I took the bait and responded only because I was momentarily bored tonight.
After all, it is a slow news week here in the real world.


Cordially, NEPTUNE


------------------

Drive safely!

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 06-03-2011).]

Next time respod when you are demanded to do so.. lol

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 06-03-2011).]

Weiner’s Office Calls Police After CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer Asks For An Interview

How do you conclude that "Liberals have no morals"? Just because they don't share your particular set of morals, or just feel strongly that the government has no business legislating morality, beyond its impact on others.

quote Originally posted by WhiteDevil88: How do you conclude that "Liberals have no morals"?

I thought I explained that in the previous post.

OK, let me expand on that. Rep. Weiner is a public official, whom people expect to behave perhaps a bit better than the average person, and he possibly took a picture of his erect trouser trout in underwear and sent it to a college girl. He is also married. He hasn't simply said "the picture wasn't me" or "I didn't take it", and has been dancing around the issue like someone who can't keep his story straight.

So...
is that a moral thing to do, sending that picture?
is it moral to send a picture like that when you're married?
is it moral to dance around the questions like he is doing?

quote Just because they don't share your particular set of morals,

How many different sets of morals are there? How many can there be? Is every set of morals actually legitimate?

quote or just feel strongly that the government has no business legislating morality, beyond its impact on others.

In general, I don't think the gov't should legislate morality, either, especially if it is based on a narrow religious doctrine. But here is where I believe that people are justified in acting on certain moral prinicples - If you feel strongly about something, and it is a very important part of your belief system, at what point can you just sit by and NOT take action to prevent things that go against that belief? Example, abortion. There are many people who very deeply and sincerely believe that a human is killed when an abortion is performed. At what point is it OK for someone to take action to prevent something they honestly, deeply and sincerely believe that is wrong and should be stopped from happening?

Wonder if this will cause a new fad where teen boys send random girls pics of their crotch.
They will probably call it "Getting Weinered".
Glad I have no Daughters, hey wait I have Granddaughters in middle school.

[This message has been edited by partfiero (edited 06-03-2011).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: p.s. - doesn't "liberal" basically mean to be liberated from rules and traditional behaviors and beliefs?

No, you are in error.

The first couple of paragraphs from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom") is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the freedom of religion. These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century.

Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as hereditary status, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property.

Your response will be to say something to the effect that it's a wikipedia entry, that anyone can edit it, so therefor it's wrong. Well, you're right about the bit where anyone can edit it, which means you can edit it to change the meaning to say something else right now. However, you better be prepared to provide cites, links, and other material to support what you edit, or it will get deleted. I know that your small, shrunken, and compressed mind will not allow you to learn anything new, that in fact you are in a most literal sense completely blind to any information outside of your one-dimensional razor thin personal ideology, so the information I'm posting here is really for the audience, not for you.

I feel sorry for you, seriously. I didn't know you before joining PFF so don't know what kind of person you were before, but now you come across as nothing more than a ranting, shrill ideologue with non-existent interests outside of a very tiny sliver of the world of politics. The thoughts and opinions you express are so often repeated and narrow in breadth and depth that it's completely predictable what you will say. The phrasing, the words you choose, the ideas (what few you seem to have), are all so limited in scope that it would be fairly easy to put together a bit of software to replicate you. Just create a small vocabulary of a few hundred words, a handful of sentence templates, and a list of catch phrases from your political ideology's favorite radio talk show hosts and that's it, fierobear in a nutshell. Set the software to trigger on some political and politicized keywords and fierobear becomes as immortal as any small bit of software can be.

And that's too bad, really...

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: [i]Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom") is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.

How do "Liberals" equate more government control with liberty?
Most Democrat / Liberal policies tend to expand the role of government. With more centralized control over an individual's life, how does that support individual liberty?

I know you're quoting the definition and not necessarily taking that viewpoint yourself. I'm just asking in general. The "Conservative" ideas of less government, less restriction on free trade, etc., would seem to be liberal ideas based on that definition, but most Liberals oppose them.

wow is this ever going in weird directions

well, lets see.....The Decleration of Independance & the Bill of Rights were both extremely liberal documents at the time of their creation.

so, we really dont need to go much further....do we? but - this is endless, so, why not.....

liberal/conservative are comparatives - NOT ideologies. Translating the Bible to English was Liberal.

Conservative is basicly: Dont change anything.

The Taliban is a group of conservatives. The KKK is a group of Conservatives. in fact - how about we make a list of issues, and see how the Taliban & how the Tea Birthers would answer. yup....the same.....

heck - women wearing pants vs women wearing dresses....and so on.....driving cars vs horses.....

sorry - the USA is populated with Liberals. 100%. all y'all well, maybe you can find a true native american conservative - but - good luck with that.

if you think the age of consent should be older than 10 - you are a liberal.

but either way - back to the root: the Consittution of the United States is a LIBERAL document. likely the greatest liberal document ever created. and - what makes it great? how liberal it is. that crazy notion that people could think for themselves.....dont need kings & churches to tell them what to do & what to think....

quote Originally posted by Formula88: How do "Liberals" equate more government control with liberty? Most Democrat / Liberal policies tend to expand the role of government. With more centralized control over an individual's life, how does that support individual liberty? I know you're quoting the definition and not necessarily taking that viewpoint yourself. I'm just asking in general. The "Conservative" ideas of less government, less restriction on free trade, etc., would seem to be liberal ideas based on that definition, but most Liberals oppose them.

Read the article, follow up by reading some relevant cites.

Weiner is NOT an attractive dude... and if his wife is really that hot girl on that magazine cover, then he's a complete idiot if in fact that picture came from him and was meant for another girl.

That said, I can't be sure that it wasn't meant for his wife, or whatever the situation is... innocent until proven guilty.... but I would be more than happy to add him to my list of hypocrits: http://www.conservative21.net/Media/The_List.txt

As for morality... if it was meant for his wife, then I can't really fault him. I've never taken pictures of my crotch before, but what I do to my wife in the bedroom would make most puritans, mennonites, jehovas witnesses, mormons, and quakers pray for my forgiveness. That said... I would NEVER cheat on my wife because second only to my daughter, she's the most important thing to me and I'd never want to hurt her. So if the guy is just a nasty SOB that likes to send his wife pictures of his crotch... then I can't really fault him for it, or claim that he lacks morals. If they were meant for another woman (that 21 year old) then I will gladly add him to my list... heh.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: But that leads to a choice of logical conclusions regarding liberals: 1. Liberals neither preach nor practice morality, therefore, they HAVE NO morality or 2. Liberals believe in morals, but don't practice them, therefore, they are hypocrites. So, Neptune, which is it? The Democrats/liberals have no morals, or they are hypocrites. Really, those are your own two choices based on the actions of the Democrats/liberals.

Either Liberals/Democrats have no morality or are hypocrites?? Do you honestly believe that? If so, what are the comparitive Republican/Conservative "choices"?

our Founding Fathers were liberals

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Weiner is NOT an attractive dude... and if his wife is really that hot girl on that magazine cover, then he's a complete idiot if in fact that picture came from him and was meant for another girl. That said, I can't be sure that it wasn't meant for his wife, or whatever the situation is... innocent until proven guilty.... but I would be more than happy to add him to my list of hypocrits: http://www.conservative21.net/Media/The_List.txt As for morality... if it was meant for his wife, then I can't really fault him. I've never taken pictures of my crotch before, but what I do to my wife in the bedroom would make most puritans, mennonites, jehovas witnesses, mormons, and quakers pray for my forgiveness. That said... I would NEVER cheat on my wife because second only to my daughter, she's the most important thing to me and I'd never want to hurt her. So if the guy is just a nasty SOB that likes to send his wife pictures of his crotch... then I can't really fault him for it, or claim that he lacks morals. If they were meant for another woman (that 21 year old) then I will gladly add him to my list... heh.

What if for arguement sakes Mr. Weiner and his wife have an open marriage or engage in threesomes or some other form of relationships?

What exactly is the problem here? What if it was say a congresswoman who took a pic of herself in sexy lingerie for her husband or bf and it was made public, would it be as bad? Worse? Or is it just some fascination people have with others sex lives?

Is the women who recieved the pics of "Mr Weiner" complaining about anything? Is "sexting" wrong or against the law?

Now having said that if Mr Weiner was sending pics of his member to try and lure a minor or trying to coerce someone into something that was clearly not wanted there is a problem IMO, otherwise I think this is more sensationalism than anything truly noteworthy.

quote Originally posted by newf: What if for arguement sakes Mr. Weiner and his wife have an open marriage or engage in threesomes or some other form of relationships? What exactly is the problem here? What if it was say a congresswoman who took a pic of herself in sexy lingerie for her husband or bf and it was made public, would it be as bad? Worse? Or is it just some fascination people have with others sex lives? Is the women who recieved the pics of "Mr Weiner" complaining about anything? Is "sexting" wrong or against the law? Now having said that if Mr Weiner was sending pics of his member to try and lure a minor or trying to coerce someone into something that was clearly not wanted there is a problem IMO, otherwise I think this is more sensationalism than anything truly noteworthy.

Well, as I mentioned before, I don't believe that what he's done is technically illegal. I asked if anyone else could think of any reason why this might be illegal, but no one responded (unless my post was just lame and that's why no one responded).

As for the hypothetical situation, I think what people have a problem with is the perceived broken trust. I have friends that are into "alternate" arrangements... and I'd trust them with my life... (but maybe wouldn't want to share a hotel room with them... hahah).

But... that's the thing, if he's done this, while going into public office with the idea that he's some how a loyal husband (assuming he is guilty of course), then there IS a problem in that his lack of faith to his wife (under the circumstances) would show a character flaw that would suggest he would likely be unable to keep promises to his constituents as well.

So, let's say for a minute that he DID have an open marriage... if that was the case, he'd need to make that known... or at the very least, it would come out. When you run for public office here in the US, it's supposed to be under the understanding that you immediately become a servant... nothing more, nothing less. You are the representation of the people in your district (or whatever the office is). In that case... if he DID have an open marriage and told people, it's unlikely he'd ever get elected in the first place. As much as the Progressive philosophy might be in accepting new ideas and lifestyles... the fact is that the vast majority of Democrats in the US are still religious Christians. So... it's a catch-22 obviously... and that's not something you'd normally bring up in conversation. However, when a gay person runs for office, it's understood that he's gay... kind of solves the problem of coming out after the fact and creating a media firestorm.

Personally, I could care less either way if a politician is gay or not... but if they think it's something that the public should know, it should be made aware. The public always responds well to a candidates honesty... but then again, how many candidates seek office for honest reasons?

EDIT: Spelling.

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 06-03-2011).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: How many different sets of morals are there? How many can there be? Is every set of morals actually legitimate?

Every human is shaped differently by the morality of their community, their religion or lack of, and the daily experience of life. Some issues are obvious, you can't take another persons life. Unless you are at war. Or defending yourself. Okay, maybe not so obvious.

It may be simpler to live in a world where you can paint everyone who fails to agree with your morals as being somehow soulless and morally bankrupt. But it isn't very realistic or fair.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: No, you are in error.

No, I was asking a question, not making a statement. Evidently you are unable to discern the difference.

quote The first couple of paragraphs from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom") is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the freedom of religion. These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century.

If the current Democratic party is about liberalism, then why are their actions so against several of the things listed above?

Constitutionalism? Obama himself has said disparaging words about our constitution, that it is a "charter of negative liberties". In that same link, he talks about "redistributive change". That's socialism and the redistribution of wealth, which ANTI-capitalist. Other actions by Obama and liberal Democrats have been anti-capitalist.

Freedom OF religion? Does that now mean freedom FROM religion? Not allowing prayer in public, and so on?

quote Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as hereditary status, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property.

What about using the law to expand government? How does an ever expanding government equal more liberty? History shows that is doesn't, and this country's founders knew that. Liberal Democrats, through their words and actions, are about increasing government, therefore, are REDUCING liberties. And property rights? Government has been chipping away at property rights all over the country.

quote Your response will be to say something to the effect that it's a wikipedia entry, that anyone can edit it, so therefor it's wrong. Well, you're right about the bit where anyone can edit it, which means you can edit it to change the meaning to say something else right now. However, you better be prepared to provide cites, links, and other material to support what you edit, or it will get deleted.

No you are incorrect. I wasn't going to say that. What I will say is that the wiki entry may be a "dictionary definition" of liberalism, but the words and actions of liberal Democrats have obviously departed from many, if not most of the principles listed within that article.

quote I know that your small, shrunken, and compressed mind will not allow you to learn anything new, that in fact you are in a most literal sense completely blind to any information outside of your one-dimensional razor thin personal ideology, so the information I'm posting here is really for the audience, not for you. (etc)

I'll just skip over this useless string of insults.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: It is not a matter of belief, it is simple logic. If liberals/Democrats neither espouse morality nor act in a moral fashion, they are not moral people. If they believe in morals, but don't practice them, then they are hypocrites.

This is far from logic. Don't forget to answer the Repub/Conservative equal comparison question.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: The thing is, I *do* believe there are some universally accepted morals. Murder, theft, rape, assault...and anyone who commits such acts would be considered morally bankrupt, wouldn't you agree? What about taking a picture of a boner in your skivvys and sending that picture to someone other than your wife? Is that a moral act? Fairness? In many Muslim communities, it is considered moral to require a woman to wear a hijab or even a burka. That is complete moral in those Muslim communities, but unacceptable here in America. Is that *fair* to women? If morality is based on a local community, then it is pretty damned difficult to agree on what is moral.

How about Catholics who pray to saints? According to my upbringing, that is idolatry and incredibly immoral. However, they believe that they are pious and moral. Some places find that it is immoral to get a haircut on Sunday. This isn't rape, murder or theft, but they are issues important to their local communities. However, would you want those moral issues enforced by law? That is just like that Sharia law. It is enforcing morality on those who do not accept those morals.

quote Originally posted by newf: This is far from logic. Don't forget to answer the Repub/Conservative equal comparison question.

Coming from anyone but you, I'd be concerned with that assessment.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Coming from anyone but you, I'd be concerned with that assessment.

Uh huh. Don't forget to answer the Repub/Conservative equal comparison question.

In Catholicism, the praying to saints is a "messenger" duty-- That is the parishioner prays to Mary, then Mary takes that prayer to God.

(Thats how I understand it)

That is "messengers" not the worshiping of Idols.

quote Originally posted by htexans1: In Catholicism, the praying to saints is a "messenger" duty-- That is the parishioner prays to Mary, then Mary takes that prayer to God. (Thats how I understand it) That is "messengers" not the worshiping of Idols.

That's fine. There are quite a few ministers who would show scripture on why praying to anyone else but father son and holy ghost is blasphemy. It's relative to your own context on how you view right and wrong.

quote Originally posted by newf: Uh huh. Don't forget to answer the Repub/Conservative equal comparison question.

Please elaborate.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: The capacity for self delusion by some (seemingly) fairly intelligent people is both amazing and dismaying.

Disgusting, as you say.
Lets look at Neptune's perspectives. What did he post when Elliot Spitzer, and John Edwards, who did NOT base there political careers on being a Bible thumping, born again, sex hating, gay hating, holier than thou "family values" Christian conservative.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Please elaborate.

Sure. You said that there are only two types of Libs/Dems when you said "The Democrats/liberals have no morals, or they are hypocrites. Really, those are your own two choices based on the actions of the Democrats/liberals."

So are there only two choices for Repubs/conservatives as well? If so what are they?

quote Originally posted by newf: Sure. You said that there are only two types of Libs/Dems when you said "The Democrats/liberals have no morals, or they are hypocrites. Really, those are your own two choices based on the actions of the Democrats/liberals."

No, actually, that is not what I said. I didn't say there are "two types" of libs/Dems, I said there were one of two logical *conclusions* that could be drawn from their *actions*. If they neither advocate nor act in a (I'll add "generally accepted") moral way, or they don't bother to act in a moral way of behavior, then how can we assume they are moral people? If they do advocated morality and moral behavior, and don't live up to it, then they are hypocrites. In a separate post, I said that a Republican would be a hypocrite if they preached morality and didn't live it. Does that answer your question?

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 06-04-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Sure. You said that there are only two types of Libs/Dems when you said "The Democrats/liberals have no morals, or they are hypocrites. Really, those are your own two choices based on the actions of the Democrats/liberals." So are there only two choices for Repubs/conservatives as well? If so what are they?

The Dems / Liberals end up looking like hypocrites because the Democrats are made up of so many different views. On the Republican side, you pretty much have a fairly consistent set of values that range everywhere from centrist (which at best would be considered a right-leaning Democrat), all the way to a Religious Theocracy (which despite common opinion, makes up a very small minority of the Republican party).

On the other hand, with Democrats you have a much larger spectrum. You have people all the way from chaotic anarchists, all the way up to centrist Democrats (which can also include fundamentalist Christians).

Like with the Republican party, the anarchists actually make up a ridiculously small portion of the Democrat party, but they're still there. The weirdest people on the planet seem to garner the most publicity. So when you have a party where the majority of them preach (like most Republicans) faithfulness to their family / wives / husbands... and then also have vocal party members who think pretty much anything goes... you're going to get a conflicting message to the opposite pole... to many on the right, the Democrats seem like hypocrits because they don't all necessarily follow a linear message.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: and then also have vocal party members who think pretty much anything goes... you're going to get a conflicting message to the opposite pole... to many on the right, the Democrats seem like hypocrits because they don't all necessarily follow a linear message.

But following on to my point, hypocrisy is only an issue if someone states a belief in morality and moral behavior. That's why a conservative is a hypocrite if the don't "practice what they preach".

If libs/Dems don't advocate or behave in a generally accepted moral way, how can we assume they have generally accepted morals? Or are there *no* generally accepted morals? Or is that the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives (a point I'd raised earlier) - that liberals do not believe in moral absolutes or in a generally accepted morality? That's where whitedevil88 raised the point about different communities having different standards. If so, how do we define morality?