Scratch Edwards off the VP search list

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
As for Edwards, human beings are fallible; his transgression personal. You're making a lot of assumptions about what he did and did not tell his wife, and seem to have forgotten Edwards isn't currently running for anything. Your feigned outrage rings hollow anyway. If cheating on one's wife is unequivocal proof one is unfit to hold positions of leadership, then most of your Republican heroes are disqualified, as are most powerful men in general regardless of their political or religious persuasion.

The simple fact is that the human male sex drive is one of the most powerful driving forces on Earth, and very, very few men are able to rise above it. The only reason more men don't cheat is because they lack opportunity. Men in positions of power and influence rarely lack opportunity.

Nowhere did I suggest our leaders have to be perfect, however while we decide worthiness- character is a big part of one's decision.
Uh, it's obvious that he didn't tell his wife when it was happening - duh.
And hello? He WAS running when this was going on. Sheesh.

:laugh: - my "feigned outrage"? Again - you have ZERO clue.

And yes, this has nothing to do with R's or D's. No matter what ideology, my position on this is the same.

The only reason more men don't cheat is because they lack opportunity.

- Wrong, that is not the "only" reason and you know it. There are plenty of men who have opportunity but do not act on "driving force" :roll: because they have more than a half ounce of self control. Those men are trustworthy. Those who can not control themselves are not - period.

BTW, just my opinon here - you sound like a cheater with your excuses. "wahhhh.... natural forces....wahhhh..." F'n weak.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You can say whatever you want, but the sky still isn't green, and it's obvious from your posts over the years that your hang-ups about sex are due to tons of Puritan baggage.

:laugh: believe what you want but like I said - you have zero clue.

Fair enough. I don't know you personally. All I know is the persona you portray on P&N. (And that persona badly needs to get laid.)

Nope, as usual you are way off base.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
who cares if he cheats. It's a non issue. People have sex deal with it.

wow. just wow. IMO, people who truly think that are just as big of scum as those who actually cheat. Pathetic.

They're scum because they are apathetic about someone cheating on his wife?:roll:

No, it's the attitude that it's "just sex" or that it's a "who cares" matter. It's much more than sex and anyone who isn't scum knows it's more than just sex.
One could make the argument that it's personal...blah blah blah, but when you put yourself on the national stage and run for office most things are not personal anymore.

It only matters to those involved personally. I couldn't give a shit what Edwards does.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
who cares if he cheats. It's a non issue. People have sex deal with it.

wow. just wow. IMO, people who truly think that are just as big of scum as those who actually cheat. Pathetic.

They're scum because they are apathetic about someone cheating on his wife?:roll:

No, it's the attitude that it's "just sex" or that it's a "who cares" matter. It's much more than sex and anyone who isn't scum knows it's more than just sex.
One could make the argument that it's personal...blah blah blah, but when you put yourself on the national stage and run for office most things are not personal anymore.

It only matters to those involved personally. I couldn't give a shit what Edwards does.

You need to stand guard in Edwards bedroom.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
When one makes a commitment to another human and then breaks that commitment it speaks of their character. So yes, it is up to us to make sure we know how a person will act if elected. If the man cheats and lies to his wife, what will he do as a leader? I know this is hard for some of you to understand, but a man's character IS important when they put themselves up for leadership positions.

+1

Well said. And I'm no puritan either. When you take everything away from a man...his possessions, achievements, etc., all he or she has left is their word. Character is THE most important quality IMO.

This sig is from someone in a different forum that I frequent and I really like it:

Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
--Frank Outlaw

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
As for Edwards, human beings are fallible; his transgression personal. You're making a lot of assumptions about what he did and did not tell his wife, and seem to have forgotten Edwards isn't currently running for anything. Your feigned outrage rings hollow anyway. If cheating on one's wife is unequivocal proof one is unfit to hold positions of leadership, then most of your Republican heroes are disqualified, as are most powerful men in general regardless of their political or religious persuasion.

The simple fact is that the human male sex drive is one of the most powerful driving forces on Earth, and very, very few men are able to rise above it. The only reason more men don't cheat is because they lack opportunity. Men in positions of power and influence rarely lack opportunity.

Nowhere did I suggest our leaders have to be perfect, however while we decide worthiness- character is a big part of one's decision.

Again, you'd have far more credibility on the matter were you not such a loyal BushCo water boy.

Uh, it's obvious that he didn't tell his wife when it was happening - duh..

Well duh. You also said something about lying to his wife. That is your assumption. It also ignores my comment about Edwards being a fallible human being. He did tell her eventually, apparently asked for her forgiveness, and she gave it. That is the end of the story in my book.

And hello? He WAS running when this was going on. Sheesh.

But he is not now, which is the point. In my opinion, this was never a legitimate public story. Pumping it up now, however, when Edwards isn't even running for anything, is nothing more than partisan character assassination. If you want to be outraged about scum, be outraged at the people hyping this non-story.

:laugh: - my "feigned outrage"? Again - you have ZERO clue.

And yes, this has nothing to do with R's or D's. No matter what ideology, my position on this is the same.

Really? Aren't you a fan of Newt Gingrich? For example.

The only reason more men don't cheat is because they lack opportunity.

Wrong, that is not the "only" reason and you know it. There are plenty of men who have opportunity but do not act on "driving force" :roll: because they have more than a half ounce of self control. Those men are trustworthy. Those who can not control themselves are not - period.

Please read all the words. I said, "... very, very few men are able to rise above it. The only reason more men ..." I already acknowledged that some men resist temptation.

By the way, you ignored my point that by your definition, virtually none of our current leaders -- political, religious, business -- are qualified to be leaders.

BTW, just my opinon here - you sound like a cheater with your excuses. "wahhhh.... natural forces....wahhhh..." F'n weak.

No Cad, that's called being educated. You should try it. It will turn your world upside down.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
When one makes a commitment to another human and then breaks that commitment it speaks of their character. So yes, it is up to us to make sure we know how a person will act if elected. If the man cheats and lies to his wife, what will he do as a leader? I know this is hard for some of you to understand, but a man's character IS important when they put themselves up for leadership positions.

+1

Well said. And I'm no puritan either. When you take everything away from a man...his possessions, achievements, etc., all he or she has left is their word. Character is THE most important quality IMO.

This sig is from someone in a different forum that I frequent and I really like it:

Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
--Frank Outlaw

I agree. And nice quote. But the true origin of that quote is Buddhist.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
who cares if he cheats. It's a non issue. People have sex deal with it.

wow. just wow. IMO, people who truly think that are just as big of scum as those who actually cheat. Pathetic.

They're scum because they are apathetic about someone cheating on his wife?:roll:

No, it's the attitude that it's "just sex" or that it's a "who cares" matter. It's much more than sex and anyone who isn't scum knows it's more than just sex.
One could make the argument that it's personal...blah blah blah, but when you put yourself on the national stage and run for office most things are not personal anymore.

I believe that is part of why we have the horrible politicians we have today. EVERYONE has skeletons in their closets. A ton of good leaders will not run for office because of what they/their families will most likely have to endure.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
As for Edwards, human beings are fallible; his transgression personal. You're making a lot of assumptions about what he did and did not tell his wife, and seem to have forgotten Edwards isn't currently running for anything. Your feigned outrage rings hollow anyway. If cheating on one's wife is unequivocal proof one is unfit to hold positions of leadership, then most of your Republican heroes are disqualified, as are most powerful men in general regardless of their political or religious persuasion.

The simple fact is that the human male sex drive is one of the most powerful driving forces on Earth, and very, very few men are able to rise above it. The only reason more men don't cheat is because they lack opportunity. Men in positions of power and influence rarely lack opportunity.

Nowhere did I suggest our leaders have to be perfect, however while we decide worthiness- character is a big part of one's decision.

Again, you'd have far more credibility on the matter were you not such a loyal BushCo water boy.

Uh, it's obvious that he didn't tell his wife when it was happening - duh..

Well duh. You also said something about lying to his wife. That is your assumption. It also ignores my comment about Edwards being a fallible human being. He did tell her eventually, apparently asked for her forgiveness, and she gave it. That is the end of the story in my book.

And hello? He WAS running when this was going on. Sheesh.

But he is not now, which is the point. In my opinion, this was never a legitimate public story. Pumping it up now, however, when Edwards isn't even running for anything, is nothing more than partisan character assassination. If you want to be outraged about scum, be outraged at the people hyping this non-story.

:laugh: - my "feigned outrage"? Again - you have ZERO clue.

And yes, this has nothing to do with R's or D's. No matter what ideology, my position on this is the same.

Really? Aren't you a fan of Newt Gingrich? For example.

The only reason more men don't cheat is because they lack opportunity.

Wrong, that is not the "only" reason and you know it. There are plenty of men who have opportunity but do not act on "driving force" :roll: because they have more than a half ounce of self control. Those men are trustworthy. Those who can not control themselves are not - period.

Please read all the words. I said, "... very, very few men are able to rise above it. The only reason more men ..." I already acknowledged that some men resist temptation.

By the way, you ignored my point that by your definition, virtually none of our current leaders -- political, religious, business -- are qualified to be leaders.

BTW, just my opinon here - you sound like a cheater with your excuses. "wahhhh.... natural forces....wahhhh..." F'n weak.

No Cad, that's called being educated. You should try it. It will turn your world upside down.

Uh... You again are 100% wrong. I am not a water boy for Bush. I've been part of the vocal Conservatives against some of what Bush has done. Just because I supported and continue to support the war does not mean I am a Bush lapdog. But we've gone over this time and time again - your types never seem to want to acknowledge that people like me exist. It seems in your world, if you don't hate Bush than you are a waterboy. :roll:

There is no "assumption" about lying to his wife. It's what cheaters do - either actively or lying by omission.

Uh, the point NOW is that up until a few months ago he was running and is(was) theoretically on a short list of becoming part of a potential Obama Administration. But no matter how much you leftist-partisans want to claim this is a "non-story" it is.

No, I'm a fan of Newt's politics. I flirted with the possibility of supporting a Newt run but decided he was far better at policy than leading.

No I didn't ignore it. I stated my position is the same for either side - which includes current "leaders".

:laugh: I am educated far more than you know. I've repeatedly mentioned you have ZERO clue about me yet you still try to suggest I'm not educated on the subject or that I'm just a puritan? Puhfugginleeze.
From my "education" on the subject your comments and other comments in this thread suggest you are a cheater - or at least think like one with all the rationalizing and excuse making. If you aren't(haven't) a cheater than I apologize but your posts sound like it.

 

[fskimospy]

Men in positions of fame and power tend to cheat on their wives. Powerful men attract desirable women, and men tend to associate power, worthiness, and sexual conquest. Not only that, but these guys are used to getting their way, and getting away with it. Of course what's interesting about this, as mentioned earlier, is that it is EXTREMELY likely McCain cheated on his wife after he got back considering the proximity of his second marriage to his first. So if marital fidelity is an issue, the people feigning outrage should probably take a look at the candidate they are supporting.

Oh, and CAD if you're educated you either are an amazing example of partisan blindness' ability to override rational thought, or you need to get a refund on your education. The problem with your postings in general aren't that they are on the far right fringe, it's that they are usually riddled with logical fallacies and factual errors. This implies that you either don't know what you're talking about or you don't know how to think.

 

[Thump553]

CAD: I agreed pretty much with your statements of morality until you said you could support Gingrich if he had run this time. Newt demonstrated at least as much-if not more-moral turpitude and hypocrisy as Edwards did, yet you are all outraged over Edwards because he MIGHT have been on Obama's shortlist for VP.

If you are going to profess that you are applying moral standards, at least apply them equally-otherwise you could come across as a partisan hypocrite.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Thump553
CAD: I agreed pretty much with your statements of morality until you said you could support Gingrich if he had run this time. Newt demonstrated at least as much-if not more-moral turpitude and hypocrisy as Edwards did, yet you are all outraged over Edwards because he MIGHT have been on Obama's shortlist for VP.

If you are going to profess that you are applying moral standards, at least apply them equally-otherwise you could come across as a partisan hypocrite.

:laugh:

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
When one makes a commitment to another human and then breaks that commitment it speaks of their character. So yes, it is up to us to make sure we know how a person will act if elected. If the man cheats and lies to his wife, what will he do as a leader? I know this is hard for some of you to understand, but a man's character IS important when they put themselves up for leadership positions.

+1

Well said. And I'm no puritan either. When you take everything away from a man...his possessions, achievements, etc., all he or she has left is their word. Character is THE most important quality IMO.

This sig is from someone in a different forum that I frequent and I really like it:

Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
--Frank Outlaw

On what word/commitment are you judging him? His wife is the one that gets to decide if he has (irreparably) broken any commitments.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Thump553
CAD: I agreed pretty much with your statements of morality until you said you could support Gingrich if he had run this time. Newt demonstrated at least as much-if not more-moral turpitude and hypocrisy as Edwards did, yet you are all outraged over Edwards because he MIGHT have been on Obama's shortlist for VP.

If you are going to profess that you are applying moral standards, at least apply them equally-otherwise you could come across as a partisan hypocrite.

I think you misunderstood my statement. I ended up chosing not to support a Newt run even though his policies were something I supported alot. One of the reasons was due to his character. That does not mean his policy ideas aren't something I can agree with - I just don't support him as a national leader.

I've stated a couple times(due to bowfinger trying to make that same accusation) that the R or D makes zero difference on this subject.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: brencat
...
Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.

I like this. If only the voters would have applied this common sense when electing the current administration...

 

[JD50]

But but McCain....

 

[seemingly random]

But but people who through rocks who live in glass houses...

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Lemon law
One sexual transgression and all the other aspects of Edward's career are forgotten. Is that crazy or not? I could understand a similar reaction if the Edwards had just murdered someone or committed some heinous crime, but last time I checked, a male having sex with a consenting female he is not married to is not against any law. And if it were and vigorously enforced, we would not have enough jails in the country to hold all the offenders in even if we released every other category of criminal to make room.

Our society is incredibly up tight crazy about sexual taboos.

Wasnt it you who suggested a few weeks ago that Edward's wife may have allowed this to happen because she could not meet his sexual needs anymore?

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

To a certain extent yes Corbett, but not quite the way to attempt to distort it. And now given Elizabeth Edwards comments, its still not very definitive and not likely to become more defined in the future.

Its an issue that has come and it will fade like yesterday's news, but in general, the GOP has to very careful or the issues of McCain's infidelities have the potential to be the better swift boat target as the Presidential campaign of 08 progresses.

McCain is a under a media spot light, Edwards pain may be now, but Edwards is still a small side issue. At best the GOP can use Edwards to say some democrats are sexual libertines, but in any honest comparison in resent years, the GOP have more skeletons in their closet.

As much as you would like to make this out to be something about how bad McCain is too, its just not. Its about Edwards and the partisan hacks like yourself trying every possibility you can to excuse Edwards' actions. Its truly pathetic.

Edwards cheated on his wife who is suffering from terminal cancer in the midst of getting ready to run for President of the United States. You first tried to excuse it by suggesting that sometimes when a wife cant please her husband any more, she advises him to have sexual relations with another woman in order to meet his needs. When that pathetic excuse was blown out of the water by the facts, you then went on to try to lessen the disgusting nature of Edwards' actions by stating that "ast time I checked, a male having sex with a consenting female he is not married to is not against any law"

Its political hackery at its worst.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: seemingly random
But but people who through rocks who live in glass houses...

But but anything else to divert the topic...

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: seemingly random
But but people who through rocks who live in glass houses...

But but anything else to divert the topic...

Yes, it disgusts me when a debunker for one party counters with "well if you think that's bad, look at what ... did". It is lame. Unfortunately, the very nature of our politics sometimes offers no recourse other than getting in the mud and using the same tactics. I wish it was rare though.

 

[JSt0rm]

but but the topic is stupid.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
but but the topic is stupid.

Of course it is. It's the repugs jabbing the democrits in the eye. Edwards fucked up. Just shut up and take the lumps.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Wow, what a douchebag Edwards turned out to be! :thumbsdown:

Couldn't agree more. Cheatin' on your wife who's dying of cancer -- major douchebag of the year award right there.

Well he is in good company seeing that this is what Newt Gingrich did during the height of the whole Clinton and Monica business. Hell he even served his wife papers while she was in the hospital.I am pretty sure that a ton of "up standing" folks in both political parties in Washington have their pieces of ass on the side here and there stashed away. The city of D.C. is the biggest money maker for high class call girls for a reason.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
who cares if he cheats. It's a non issue. People have sex deal with it.

wow. just wow. IMO, people who truly think that are just as big of scum as those who actually cheat. Pathetic.

They're scum because they are apathetic about someone cheating on his wife?:roll:

No, it's the attitude that it's "just sex" or that it's a "who cares" matter. It's much more than sex and anyone who isn't scum knows it's more than just sex.
One could make the argument that it's personal...blah blah blah, but when you put yourself on the national stage and run for office most things are not personal anymore.

It only matters to those involved personally. I couldn't give a shit what Edwards does.

You need to stand guard in Edwards bedroom.

Somebody needs to stand guard in front of your medicine cabinet.

 

[Lemon law]

Somewhere lost in this whole thread is the notion that sexual fidelity to thine spouse is not the only issue to judge character by.

For that matter, if I thought someone like Monica Lewinski could blow some judgment, wisdom, or moral character into someone like GWB, I would advocate hiring her and many like her as the most prudent investment our national government could make.

We should stop to ask, how many people did John Edward get killed by his mis judgments with Reilly Hunter? How much money has John Edwards taken out of my pocket? And since I did not vote for John Edwards in the primaries, how am I shamed?