Jughaid
-
Content Count
2,106 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Jughaid
-
-
Police officers are small-minded and have inferiority complexes?
Nope. We arm them to protect us all from those people who carry the firearms.
-
Do you ask your spouse the same questions?
You are trying to impose your morality on us. Why is that ok if it isn't ok for us to do the same?
You're going to have to explain your logic because it is making no sense. A candidate is not applying for a job as a spouse and a spouse is not applying for a job as a candidate. Are you saying everyone should be privy to your conversations with your spouse?
I clearly need to make a doctor's appointment.
I've already made mine for next week or else I would be in the emergency room now.
-
Exactly!
Back to the topic at hand, I had already said I had no intention of voting for Mr. Stout. I knew he was divorced, but had no idea of the details, and did not ask because of the amount of time that had passed. I have completely other issues with Mr. Stout.
What'd I really hate to see is this one issue being blamed as the sole reason he's not elected (if he's not). I'm not sure that many people will make this a driving issue. I do respect his being honest and forthcoming.
My God. This makes twice in one week you and I have agreed. One of us is either drinking, has a lapse in sanity, or you're finally coming around.
-
Maybe a better question is "Do they honor their contracts". Marriage is a contract under the law. At what age someone should be able to enter a contract is another question
altogether. I am just stating this and am not taking part in any judgement on this board of anyone. In some of those professions you mention I do believe the question of honoring contracts is relevent. I want the folks I vote for to honor their word and the contract I feel they have made with the voter (citizens) when they raise their hand and are sworn in.
Do youo ask your doctor about his marriage and sexual escapades before you use him or her?
The folks I vote for to represent me, means just that. They represent me. Why would I vote for someone that doesn't represent what I believe? You keep responding in the manner you do, because everyone can see how "out there" you really are. Even people with no moral values who vote for people with no moral values are still voting for people with the same values. It is a universal standard.
If teh majority of the people want a leader and they should be allowed to have that leader and there be no outside interference. Is that right?
-
I agree to a point, actually. But we're not talking about what a person does in his marriage -- we're talking about what he did/does outside his marriage. And once you show the poor judgment to open yourself up to disease, blackmail, etc. -- well, if abuse of power is wrong, then it seems like poor judgment to put yourself in a position where you could be blackmailed to abuse your office, even if the moral components of the question don't matter to you. A leader compromised by a personal secret he must keep to avoid being embarrassed or disgraced... that's a dangerous vulnerability.
I do think character matters and I think most people believe it matters. Personally, I see a difference between the character of a teenager who totally screwed up and admitted it and built something new and solid out of the wreckage... and the character of a grown adult who thinks they are immune from the consequences of betraying their family and a community who trusted them and their judgment. An affair ten years before you ever thought about public service and for which you've been forgiven by all parties seems a different offense to me than cheating on your family while actively engaged in trying to present yourself as a leader of people. And this is from someone who is not supporting Stout as a candidate, but finds this last minute mudslinging just despicable.
Good night, sleep tight... don't let the conservatives bite.
That standard of "personal secrets" to avoid blackmail is applied to military leaders and law enforcement too? Should the marriage be part of the inerview proces? If you're going to apply it to one governemnt servant why don't you apply it to all of them?
Specifically, how about doctors or nurses? I am especially interested in what you say about teachers and what should happen to them?
-
Are you that dense? If a candidate doesn't hold my ideals, then I don't vote for them. As a citizen here in America, I can impose ANY and ALL ideas on any candidate I choose. Just like every other voter does for their candidate. I can't believe you would ask such a stupid question.
Now I understand where you are coming from.
Do you think it is acceptable to impose that same standard on law enforcement? Should their marriage be a question we should ask them about? How about our military leaders? Do we ask about their sexual past? If you're going to impose that standard on a candidate for public service, why don't you put it on other public servants? If it's good for the goose it is good for the gander, right?
As a citizen here in America, I can impose ANY and ALL ideas on any candidate I choose. Even the ideas that are not fair. Gotcha.
-
Not in my book. Morality is a big part of people I put faith and trust in. If they are willing to cheat on a "sacred" relationship, then that means something to me. As I said earlier, I will look at the apology and move on from there.
So you are imposing your religious ideas on candidates now? What if the candidate is not a christian to view that marriage as "sacred" at all?
-
> Leadership and what goes on in a marriage are two different things.
I respectfully disagree that the two are completely mutually exclusive. I think the question of commitment is a common thread in both. I also think it's certainly no more morally high and mighty of me to consider that point of view reasonable than it is morally high and mighty of you to tell me it's most certainly not.
P.S. You said "bullcheeze." You are adorable.
Nighty night.
Yeah. We disagree. It is not my business what goes on in anybody's marriage but my own.
If it affected how I performed on the job, then yes. They hired me for 100% not 40%. If I'm not getting then they may have an argument to ask why.
Job performance is the issue! If you're only giving 40% then you should be judged based on that performance. The reason is irrelevant. Judge the guy based on what he does in office or his qualifications for the office, not how well his relationship is going.
-
Folks can and do judge me all the time. I don't mind. The only think I will defend is a wrong judgment. I don't put myself in those situations and I expect others to do the same. If they fail, I will look at the apology for sincerity and make a judgment from there. I won't use it as as a "weapon" against them; instead, I use it as "protection" for me and my family.
Surrrrrre. If your wife up and left you, would you want to have to explain all the sordid details of your situation to your boss and any future employers?
-
I agree to a point, actually. But we're not talking about what a person does in his marriage -- we're talking about what he did/does outside his marriage. And once you show the poor judgment to open yourself up to disease, blackmail, etc. -- well, if abuse of power is wrong, then it seems like poor judgment to put yourself in a position where you could be blackmailed to abuse your office, even if the moral components of the question don't matter to you. A leader compromised by a personal secret he must keep to avoid being embarrassed or disgraced... that's a dangerous vulnerability.
I do think character matters and I think most people believe it matters. Personally, I see a difference between the character of a teenager who totally screwed up and admitted it and built something new and solid out of the wreckage... and the character of a grown adult who thinks they are immune from the consequences of betraying their family and a community who trusted them and their judgment. An affair ten years before you ever thought about public service and for which you've been forgiven by all parties seems a different offense to me than cheating on your family while actively engaged in trying to present yourself as a leader of people. And this is from someone who is not supporting Stout as a candidate, but finds this last minute mudslinging just despicable.
Good night, sleep tight... don't let the conservatives bite.
It is HIS marriage, not your's. You are giving an all high sounding speech, but that is all pure bullcheeze. If those things didn't matter to the electorate, then the blackmail wouldn't be a problem. The only person it would matter to is the spouse and if that is the real problem, why bother with Ken Starr to begin with? Would you find it acceptable for every job applicant to be asked about affairs and how many sex partners there have been because someone may blackmail them into stealing from the company or doing something wrong?
You're making the ASSumption that it is a person's character that is in question. Wrong! Try again, kee mo sabi. Wreckage? How do you know the marriage was not already wrecked? And what of it? It is not your business. The people that get bent out of shape about are the people who want to claim moral high ground over everybody else to begin with. Leadership and what goes on in a marriage are two different things.
And this is from someone who is not supporting Stout as a candidate, but finds this last minute mudslinging just despicable.
-
I can see that "trust" "honesty" "integrity" "committed" or "faithful" really doesn't matter in politics to you. I NOW understand.
I'm saying that you can't translate the issue to the job the person will do in the elected office. I see that if you want to make moral judgements about candidates. Would you want those same subjective moral judgements to be made by an employer about you and would you want to explain all those details about your relationship with your spouse every few years?
-
You're using Gary Hart as an example? That was an ugly episode, but it's difficult to humor any suggestion that The Miami Herald was some bastion of conservative conspiracy. I think it's odds-on likely that the take-down of Hart was done by democrat party insiders who wanted Hart out of the way of their own candidate's future. You'll have to take your grievances up with the Herald, I guess.
I think we'd agree that any candidate who, either while campaigning for an office or after election to office, chooses to engage in behaviors that reflect negatively on his/her character and judgment -- including infidelity or abuse of power -- deserves some degree of scrutiny and consequence, regardless of party affiliation. That goes for state representatives and US Senators. What the consequence may be is a matter to be decided by personal conscience in all cases, the law if applicable to the situation, and ultimately the electorate the next time the polls open.
Meanwhile -- in this topic, I think we mostly agree that a breakdown in moral judgment by a teenager may not necessarily be reflective of their true character a decade later. That alone doesn't seem to be grounds to eliminate someone from a fair consideration as a candidate, at least in my view. I don't speak for anyone else.
No we don't agree. I think that what a person does in the marriage is between the married people and none of anyone's business at all. The only reason it gets to be an issue is so it can call into question a person's judgement when that personal judgement is none of our business in the first place. We don't know what goes on behind those doors, what they fight about, what they agree on or what has happened to that relationship. None of our business. If they misuse the office like Richardson did, it is an issue. Newt's multiple transgressions? Who cares. John Edwards? Who cares. Clinton? Who cares/ That he lied under oath is a problem but not the cigar or the desk games. Kenndy? FDR? Any of them? Who cares? It is not a character flaw or a question of judgement because sometimes the best thing that can happen is for one of the partners to find somebody that really cares. Judgement? Character? I want to know who can do the best job and those are not issues/questions we allow employers to ask so we shouldn't ask it of candidates either.
-
Don't flatter yourself Jughad. I follow sometimes simply for "entertainment value".
The giggles are all mine!
:rofl: -
Easy enough to read on here.
We will see!
-
That's an interesting question. Can you think of a similar example? All the democrat scandals seem to come after there's public trust to betray, not just private.
All I can tell you is this -- I have stuck up for many a liberal friend who made a mistake and tried to make amends and sincere repentance. You'd probably be surprised.
Have a good evening!
Was Richardson's a public trust issue? How about Gary Hart, just off the top of my head?
Just following your "lead"? Jughaid.
I just knew you would "follow" me.
-
That's all you have?
That's the only question I have. Do you want to discuss something else or are you just waiting to pounce on something else I say?
-
No, actually -- but I love how you can't resist the opportunity to eventually make everything you post about me. I need not be self-admiring with you around!
Do you have any further thoughts on the actual topic or not? It seems to pain you that many of us seem to have reached similar conclusions to yours -- minus the ad hominem lashing out, of course.
The pain is that when this happens with a candidate with a D after his name, I wonder how this will all play out then?
-
Sorry - your energetic reentry into the topic made me think you might have had another relevant or pertinent idea to contribute, other than just slamming other people.
My mistake - sorry!
So you really didn't want to know my answers to the questions but were more interested in taking some shots at me personally? Is that about right? Maybe not?
-
As long as you're posting in this topic, what do you think about the allegations, how they surfaced, and whether/how they relate to the race itself rather than to the people you dislike on pcom? Do you find yourself mostly in agreement with the analysis of the situation expressed here, or not? Just out of curiosity.
Cheers!
Post number 2.
-
I find JMT's posts to be very informative, intelligent and objective. I also know that he is a very intelligent, sincere, successful, compassionate, caring, sincere person and to me, those qualities are very admirable.
Nothing to do with political agreement, I'm sure.
Good God I need a Pamprin.
-
I've been taught by the moderating staff here to be oblique.
Any other ad hominems you'd like to toss out, instead of actually commenting on the topic that we seem to agree on?
Not really. Just noting that the agreement here has more to do with the R in front of the candidate's name instead of anything else.
Chocolate. I am craving chocolate.
-
One presumes from the lack of argument on the actual topic that JH/female must agree with the conclusions most of us have reached about the inappropriate nature of this sordid smearing, and rather than celebrate the common ground many of us seem to have found for a change, she's decided to pitch some ad hominem fits.
Ah well. Ob la dee, ob la dah, life goes on.
Frankly, I find JMT's prose so self-admiringly opaque that it’s nearly impossible to figure out what he’s saying about anyone at anytime. It’s like being insulted in Sanskrit. It’s possible he’s writing something terrible, but who’s to say, really?
-
I will have to say Jughaid that it is nice that you are able to laugh at yourself. As for me making a downright blind and silly statement, that is simply your opinion and for the record, your opinion doesn't count in my personal life.
Your's doesn't count in mine either. Glad we've got that out of the way.
-
Good grief Jughaid....have the b!!s to come out and say it - you were referring to me and no, I did not personally observe Glenn having an affair, therefore I can't say that he positively did - I didn't witness it.
You and your constant personal attacks.....must be sad to be you!
I said it was you that made the downright blind and silly statement. That's why I started the poll. You think that is a personal attack? Must be sad to be me is not personal. Gotcha. Wow.
Can we get back to discussing how what happened in the personal life of a guy that wasn't in office to abuse his power has really nothing to do with him running for office now? Can we get back to that, please?
Stout wins with 59.9% of vote in 19th District Special Election Results
in Paulding County NEWS
Posted
My point is illustrated.