Jughaid

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've already made mine for next week or else I would be in the emergency room now.

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.

Do youo ask your doctor about his marriage and sexual escapades before you use him or her? 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?

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?

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.

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?

Yeah. We disagree. It is not my business what goes on in anybody's marriage but my own. 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.

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?

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 charac

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?

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 ca

The giggles are all mine! :rofl:

We will see!

Was Richardson's a public trust issue? How about Gary Hart, just off the top of my head? I just knew you would "follow" me.

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?

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?

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?

Post number 2.

Nothing to do with political agreement, I'm sure. Good God I need a Pamprin.

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.

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 see you have some issues with me and think I am hate filled and combative. I'm so sorry you feel that way. Here's to hoping you have a pleasant evening and you will reconsider your emotions towards me and my positions on issues.

Your's doesn't count in mine either. Glad we've got that out of the way.

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?

Only because the candidate runs as a conservative Republican. Won't happen when it is not a Republican.