Tom Delay admits infidelities

[shadow9d9]

Note:

Running a campaign about being a true "christian" and pushing legislation of one's own personal moralities(which were obviously lies) while doing the opposite is a huge huge problem.

Asking for people to better their environment while not doing the same just makes them a wishful thinker while ending up being "normal"(like everyone else) is just simply lame.

There is a huge difference between the 2. The former involves being a liar who pushes false morals through legislation while committing adultery. The latter simply wants a cleaner earth while having a big house and not personally being as clean as possible. How could any sane person compare these 2 and think that they cancel each other out as equals? They aren't even in the same hemisphere.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Banking on the emotional circus act of Christian forgiveness where everybody gets to feel important because they forgave.

We forgive you Tom; glory to the Lord, who has saved you.

Yeah, but why they always seem to forget, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" part?

Why is it that anything that has to do with republicans or conservatives has a direct link to religion for you people? Are there no church going liberals? I've never understood why this card has to be played every... single... time...

I guess people don't much like having their hypocisy pointed out to them, huh? Funny that you don't mind pointing it out in Obama though.

What are you talking about?

I wasn't pointing out any hypocrisy. What I pointed out was that Gingrich et al are using the same risk aversion tactics that Obama is. There's a big difference. What's more, I wasn't making any moral judgement on any of them. And this is why I don't understand the need to drag religion through the mud again as though there are no liberals who go to church.

Way to dodge the question though.

What makes you think religion can't be questioned/examined/critized?? It isn't any different then any other political power?

It is when it's relevant. But to arbitrarily drag it into every thread about conservatives, gays, whatever... it just gets old. And most of the time it's dragged into the conversation more as a vehicle to bash people of faith than anything else.

If we're not discussing the church's stand on the issue at hand I don't see the reason to bring it up. You don't have to be part of a church to point out the moral failings of a public figure. Nor does their religious past have any bearing on their actions being any more right or wrong than they are at face value.

Well, I'm sorry if you don't think it's appropiate to the discussion, but I think it fits right in with what Newt and Delay really are. One of my favorite movies, if not my outright favorite is "Life of Brian", so?? Religion is free game AFAIC.

"I don't believe there is a separation of church and state. I think the Constitution is very clear. The only separation is that there will not be a government church." ?Tom DeLay

Maybe the religious right should be a little pickier about who they elect. I mean these were the same people who they were critisizing Slick Willie for his indiscretions. According to them you would have thought the sky was falling.

This whole thing nicely illustrates one of the reasons why I'm not much of a believer in organized religion. I've seen too many people preaching on Sunday who would screw you over for everything you had on Monday. I know nobody is perfect, that's the whole point. I'm not making fun of religion, I'm making fun of Gingrich and Delay because now that the whole truth is out, they were (I think still are) big, blowhard, phonies.

Jesus did say "let he without sin cast the first stone" and it applies perfectly here, what's wrong with pointing that out? People need to realize that religion isn't about going to church every Sunday, it's about living your life in a certain way.

 

[boredhokie]

Not a good decision on his part - if he was having sex with young boys the republican's in the senate would have covered it up for him. Do never touch the filthy women!

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Note:

Running a campaign about being a true "christian" and pushing legislation of one's own personal moralities(which were obviously lies) while doing the opposite is a huge huge problem.

Asking for people to better their environment while not doing the same just makes them a wishful thinker while ending up being "normal"(like everyone else) is just simply lame.

There is a huge difference between the 2. The former involves being a liar who pushes false morals through legislation while committing adultery. The latter simply wants a cleaner earth while having a big house and not personally being as clean as possible. How could any sane person compare these 2 and think that they cancel each other out as equals? They aren't even in the same hemisphere.

Well, according to GW evangelicals, GW means the end of the earth. I've never heard the claim that adultry will submerge continents and kill all the polar bears etc. Musta missed that memo

Fern

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Note:

Running a campaign about being a true "christian" and pushing legislation of one's own personal moralities(which were obviously lies) while doing the opposite is a huge huge problem.

Asking for people to better their environment while not doing the same just makes them a wishful thinker while ending up being "normal"(like everyone else) is just simply lame.

There is a huge difference between the 2. The former involves being a liar who pushes false morals through legislation while committing adultery. The latter simply wants a cleaner earth while having a big house and not personally being as clean as possible. How could any sane person compare these 2 and think that they cancel each other out as equals? They aren't even in the same hemisphere.

Well, according to GW evangelicals, GW means the end of the earth. I've never heard the claim that adultry will submerge continents and kill all the polar bears etc. Musta missed that memo

Fern

Not sure what GW is and not sure what your post was supposed to mean.

 

[Fern]

GW = global warming. It's a commonly used abbreviation on these forums.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Well, according to GW evangelicals, GW means the end of the earth. I've never heard the claim that adultry will submerge continents and kill all the polar bears etc. Musta missed that memo

Fern

Well, according to some people adultery will earn you an eternity in a lake of fire. I guess it's all about the timeframes. Submerged by regular lake now, or fire lake later... at least there are options available.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

Well, according to GW evangelicals, GW means the end of the earth. I've never heard the claim that adultry will submerge continents and kill all the polar bears etc. Musta missed that memo

Fern

Well, according to some people adultery will earn you an eternity in a lake of fire. I guess it's all about the timeframes. Submerged by regular lake now, or fire lake later... at least there are options available.

Much more fun that the lake of fire thingy is to carry with the Al Gore analogies. (BTW: I would disagree with those who claim adultry will earn you swim there - I suppose that's some Baptists on shaky theology)

Not that I particularly dis-like Al Gore, I don't. I do believe that he shameless exagerates, but don't most puiblicity/marketing people? Or leaders of various cause (lake of fire proponents)?

No, the fun kicks in for me watching those defenders of Gore's excessive carbon generating lifestyle (while he champions restraints upon others).

One of my favorites is:

"He is allowed such extravagent emmisions because he has dedicated his life to making us aware of GW, preaching the necessaity of conservation so it may save us from ourselves etc."

Well, likewise one can't say the same about these (fallen) preachers. Have they not dedicated their lives to warning us of the negative consequences of adultry (even if they are secular, surley no one argues it is good). Thus, does not the preacher deserve the same lattitude awarded Gore? Cannot they have uncritisized adultry, deserving of this "excess" as Gore is deserving of his?

I am amused by those who craft these little "logic models" but claim that they can only be fairly applied to their own narrowly defined set of circumstances. These aberations, these singularities in the universe of logic. "What goes up does not come down". "What is good for the goose is not good for the gander". The resulting contortions and fabrications to prevent their application to any other situation not of their liking is amusing.

I suppose I am too easily amused.

Or too much tax work makes me loopy

Fern

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Fern
Or too much tax work makes me loopy
Fern

Well that explains it all, I will certainly give you the benefit of the doubt from here on out.

Seriously though, Delay was constantly beating his bible about moral convictions and had a pretty high profile role in the Terri Schiavo deal, so in this case he deserves all of the scorn heaped upon him.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Fern
Or too much tax work makes me loopy
Fern

Well that explains it all, I will certainly give you the benefit of the doubt from here on out.

Seriously though, Delay was constantly beating his bible about moral convictions and had a pretty high profile role in the Terri Schiavo deal, so in this case he deserves all of the scorn heaped upon him.

Not to mention he was "healed" by everyone's favorite whipping boy James Dobson ("send me a check and your sins will disappear!")

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Fern
Or too much tax work makes me loopy
Fern

Well that explains it all, I will certainly give you the benefit of the doubt from here on out.

Seriously though, Delay was constantly beating his bible about moral convictions and had a pretty high profile role in the Terri Schiavo deal, so in this case he deserves all of the scorn heaped upon him.

Not to mention he was "healed" by everyone's favorite whipping boy James Dobson ("send me a check and your sins will disappear!")

Sounds like Al Gore and his carbon credits, lol.

 

[spittledip]

I wonder if alot of the politicians enjoy the "toy boy" lifestyle Delany describes in the link. I assume that it is part of their culture. I.E, they are all dogs at heart.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
They should modify the oath of office to include a promise "I will shoot myself in the head if I am ever caught in a lie." and be forced to wear a sign that says, "I should be dead." if they don't.".

You always find the biggest puss sack scum hiding behind the biggest phony moral front.

The Republican party is a magnet for maggots.

Wouldn't that be the first one?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Fern
Much more fun that the lake of fire thingy is to carry with the Al Gore analogies. (BTW: I would disagree with those who claim adultry will earn you swim there - I suppose that's some Baptists on shaky theology)

Not that I particularly dis-like Al Gore, I don't. I do believe that he shameless exagerates, but don't most puiblicity/marketing people? Or leaders of various cause (lake of fire proponents)?

No, the fun kicks in for me watching those defenders of Gore's excessive carbon generating lifestyle (while he champions restraints upon others).

One of my favorites is:

"He is allowed such extravagent emmisions because he has dedicated his life to making us aware of GW, preaching the necessaity of conservation so it may save us from ourselves etc."

Well, likewise one can't say the same about these (fallen) preachers. Have they not dedicated their lives to warning us of the negative consequences of adultry (even if they are secular, surley no one argues it is good). Thus, does not the preacher deserve the same lattitude awarded Gore? Cannot they have uncritisized adultry, deserving of this "excess" as Gore is deserving of his?

I am amused by those who craft these little "logic models" but claim that they can only be fairly applied to their own narrowly defined set of circumstances. These aberations, these singularities in the universe of logic. "What goes up does not come down". "What is good for the goose is not good for the gander". The resulting contortions and fabrications to prevent their application to any other situation not of their liking is amusing.

I suppose I am too easily amused.

Or too much tax work makes me loopy

Fern

:thumbsup: