Colin Powell Denies Affair with Romanian Politician

[Esmeralda]

You realize that you're applauding the concept that world leaders need no less integrity than people who do menial jobs? Well. You might as well be applauding your own idiocy then.

First, I am applauding the part of the post which I bolded. I found it to be very clever, the literary allusion.

Second, world leaders are human beings. If you expect them to be perfect paragons of virture, you will always be disappointed. For example: GW Bush was a drunk and a drug addict at one time. As well, he dodged conscription during the Vietnam war. Hardly someone of high moral integrity. His wife killed someone in an auto accident because she was an irresponsible teenage driver. She got away without punishment because of her father's position of power in their community. Hardly a paragon of moral integrity. What is important about world leaders is that they do their job as a world leader with responsiblity and integrity. Their sex lives or love lives are not our business. Your knee jerk need to call people with whom you disagree 'idiots' shows the lack of integrity you possess.

First, You probably should've quoted the part then, rather than bold. Seems like it would have eliminated the confusion. (I had never even seen his original post and had figured he had bolded his own words. People do that all the time).

Second, there is no documentation that GWB was a drug addict. Nor have I seen anything to state that he was an alcoholic, though I find it believable that he could have a sordid past. Regardless, he seemed to have done a great job of putting that in his past well before he entered the public arena. And he managed to continue on that path while in office.

Third, you continued with your cheap shots of the Bushes. Laura was in an 'accident.' There was no criminal negligence and it appears that you're just taking partisan hack shots.

Fourth. Really? Politicians sex lives are not our business? Because those same politicians seem to think that our anything is our business when they're performing their warrantless searches. I may not have the right to know anyone's sex lives, but let's not pretend that such occurrences don't speak to people's lack of character.

Fifth, you'll judge my character on a message board post, but say we shouldn't judge politicians who cheat on their spouses? Okay, lady. If you say so.

There is all kinds of information that GW Bush was alcoholic and doing cocaine. He admitted to it. And why didn’t you mention he dodged the draft? Because he did that well before he entered politics? What hypocrisy. Laura Bush's 'accident' was negligence. She went straight through a red light because she was chatting with someone in her car and not paying attention. It was a teenage Saturday night out. She was negligent!!! And she killed someone. And she did not get in trouble because her father pulled strings to keep her out of trouble. It was no 'accident.' Anyone else would have been in big trouble because she drove straight through a red light.

People's personal sex lives generally have no bearing on how they do their jobs. If they do, then it is reasonable to be concerned, but when it has no effect on job performance, it is no one's business. It's funny that it is always the Right, who are supposedly so concerned about their right to live without government and others' interference who are so interested in and obsessed with controlling others' personal lives.

I was assessing your character as it pertains to your debate strategies on this message board, an assessment which is appropriate. If Powell's or anyone else's love life is directly affecting how they do their job, then it is pertinent. Your debate strategy of calling anyone with whom you disagree an idiot is pertinent here.

BTW, both drivers ran the stop sign too.

No, no, no...the other driver did not go through a red light or stop sign. No way. She did. She is the only one who went through a red light/stop sign. She killed him, outright; there is no doubt about it and no fault on the part of the other driver.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I've never heard of Bush admitting to cocaine. And I've watched enough MSNBC to know that even the ubertards aren't claiming that. Bush didn't dodge the draft. He was in the national air guard. Dodging the draft is going to Canada.

Nobody goes to jail for running red lights, ding bat.

And actually people's sexual indiscretions do say a lot of their character. And in some cases it does affect what they do in office. You're just in bold faced denial mode.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^
1. Being arrested for a DUI is different than being a drug addict and a drunk, is it not?
2. Do you not know the definition of accident? Why are you giving me details that support my statement? BTW, both drivers ran the stop sign too.
3. Did I say CP performed warrantless searches? You need to follow a train of thought without being a total butt fucking moron.
4. "Mean-spirited" LMAO. I don't suffer liars and scammers like yourself. Deal with it.

And pretty much why we judge you.

Laura Bush ran a stop sign and killed someone. But, hey, her daddy was rich, so they covered it up. I just want to keep this in mind next time you feel the urge to whine about Cappaquidick.

LOL. You judge people as long as the day is long. I don't care about your piddly judgments though.

Laura Bush was sober and ran a stop sign. It was an accident. Ted Kennedy was drunk and drove off a bridge. This is why you're an idiot. And that's not really me judging you. That's really more just stating the patently obvious. Hence, I refer you to my fourth point that I don't suffer liars and scammers like yourself.

 

[Esmeralda]

I've never heard of Bush admitting to cocaine. And I've watched enough MSNBC to know that even the ubertards aren't claiming that. Bush didn't dodge the draft. He was in the national air guard. Dodging the draft is going to Canada.

Nobody goes to jail for running red lights, ding bat.

And actually people's sexual indiscretions do say a lot of their character. And in some cases it does affect what they do in office. You're just in bold faced denial mode.

Oh, yes, he most certainly did admit to using cocaine and alcohol. No one is talking about going to jail for running a red light; I am talking about killing someone when you run a red light.

More name calling? Says what you are far more than it says anything at all about me. Name calling in a debate is a well known logical fallacy (ad hominem); i.e., those who have no real intellectual ammunition resort to name calling.

Sexual behavior is personal, individual. It isn't up to you to decide what is right or wrong or to make rules about what adults do in their private lives; and for you to say it is your right is very hypocritical if you are someone who says the government and others need to keep out of your personal life, which is what the right wing is always saying.

 

[Pogo]

You'll judge my character on a message board post, but say we shouldn't judge politicians who cheat on their spouses? Okay, lady. If you say so.

[MENTION=42498]Esmeralda[/MENTION]

That's how that's done.

Applauding his own post since no one else will.

New paradigm for "pathetic".

This is why you're an idiot. And that's not really me judging you.

Put this on a plaque somewhere...

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I've never heard of Bush admitting to cocaine. And I've watched enough MSNBC to know that even the ubertards aren't claiming that. Bush didn't dodge the draft. He was in the national air guard. Dodging the draft is going to Canada.

Nobody goes to jail for running red lights, ding bat.

And actually people's sexual indiscretions do say a lot of their character. And in some cases it does affect what they do in office. You're just in bold faced denial mode.

Oh, yes, he most certainly did admit to using cocaine and alcohol. No one is talking about going to jail for running a red light; I am talking about killing someone when you run a red light.

More name calling? Says what you are far more than it says anything at all about me. Name calling in a debate is a well known logical fallacy (ad hominem); i.e., those who have no real intellectual ammunition resort to name calling.

Sexual behavior is personal, individual. It isn't up to you to decide what is right or wrong or to make rules about what adults do in their private lives; and for you to say it is your right is very hypocritical if you are someone who says the government and others need to keep out of your personal life, which is what the right wing is always saying.

Okay. If you're not talking about going to jail then I have no idea why you mentioned her father keeping her out of trouble. What trouble? Was she going to have to wear a scarlet FC for fatal crash?

I am not doing an ad hominem fallacy because I'm clearly stating my cases. The name calling is just a little something for me to make sure you know how moronic I think your assertions are. And speaking of fallacies; it's a fallacy to assert that that the use of a name calling excludes intellectualism and rightness. But, nice try on that one.

As for sexual behavior in a public forum; it actually is up to you and me to decide what is right and wrong or rather what is acceptable and unacceptable. If I want to go have sex on the sidewalk; it's against the law. Furthermore, public opinion will always be a prevalent factor in any matter whether you like it or not.

And I said nothing that was hypocritical. Did I say I have the right to know everything about CP's sex life? No. But, when he gets exposed and it's out there, then I am within my rights to make judgments. None of that means that I'm against privacy. Nor is privacy a right wing concept by the way. Maybe, you just forgot cos your guy is in office. Somehow, it was a huge issue when Bush was in office. But, I'm use to libtard's revolving door values.

 

[Esmeralda]

I've never heard of Bush admitting to cocaine. And I've watched enough MSNBC to know that even the ubertards aren't claiming that. Bush didn't dodge the draft. He was in the national air guard. Dodging the draft is going to Canada.

Nobody goes to jail for running red lights, ding bat.

And actually people's sexual indiscretions do say a lot of their character. And in some cases it does affect what they do in office. You're just in bold faced denial mode.

Oh, yes, he most certainly did admit to using cocaine and alcohol. No one is talking about going to jail for running a red light; I am talking about killing someone when you run a red light.

More name calling? Says what you are far more than it says anything at all about me. Name calling in a debate is a well known logical fallacy (ad hominem); i.e., those who have no real intellectual ammunition resort to name calling.

Sexual behavior is personal, individual. It isn't up to you to decide what is right or wrong or to make rules about what adults do in their private lives; and for you to say it is your right is very hypocritical if you are someone who says the government and others need to keep out of your personal life, which is what the right wing is always saying.

Okay. If you're not talking about going to jail then I have no idea why you mentioned her father keeping her out of trouble. What trouble? Was she going to have to wear a scarlet FC for fatal crash?

I am not doing an ad hominem fallacy because I'm clearly stating my cases. The name calling is just a little something for me to make sure you know how moronic I think your assertions are. And speaking of fallacies; it's a fallacy to assert that that the use of a name calling excludes intellectualism and rightness. But, nice try on that one.

As for sexual behavior in a public forum; it actually is up to you and me to decide what is right and wrong or rather what is acceptable and unacceptable. If I want to go have sex on the sidewalk; it's against the law. Furthermore, public opinion will always be a prevalent factor in any matter whether you like it or not.

And I said nothing that was hypocritical. Did I say I have the right to know everything about CP's sex life? No. But, when he gets exposed and it's out there, then I am within my rights to make judgments. None of that means that I'm against privacy. Nor is privacy a right wing concept by the way. Maybe, you just forgot cos your guy is in office. Somehow, it was a huge issue when Bush was in office. But, I'm use to libtard's revolving door values.

You apparently don't understand what fallacious thinking is. You are side stepping the issue regarding the inappropriateness of making an issue of a politician's personal sexual life. Also, inserting what is against the law is a red herring. Whether or not something is public opinion is not relevant to whether or not they are doing their job. Being a gossip and judging people on their personal behavior is one thing; saying someone doesn't have the right to hold a job because of their personal behavior is another. Assuming that it's okay to judge anyone based on what they might have done "when it gets out there" is completly without any logical or rational basis. And more name calling really does indicate the inability to think and to express yourself in rational, logical terms rather than using ad hominems. Done here. Some people are not worth the effort to debate. And that is not an ad hominem: it is truly what I think. I have no patience to spend my effort trying to reason with someone who is not capable of intellectually honest and reasoned thought.

 

[JoeB131]

[

LOL. You judge people as long as the day is long. I don't care about your piddly judgments though.

Laura Bush was sober and ran a stop sign. It was an accident. Ted Kennedy was drunk and drove off a bridge. This is why you're an idiot. And that's not really me judging you. That's really more just stating the patently obvious. Hence, I refer you to my fourth point that I don't suffer liars and scammers like yourself.

did someone give her a breathalyzer?

Fact is, the rich have a different set of law than the rest of us do, and you know it.

Why you try to pretend this isn't so is the mystery to me.

 

[Esmeralda]

[

LOL. You judge people as long as the day is long. I don't care about your piddly judgments though.

Laura Bush was sober and ran a stop sign. It was an accident. Ted Kennedy was drunk and drove off a bridge. This is why you're an idiot. And that's not really me judging you. That's really more just stating the patently obvious. Hence, I refer you to my fourth point that I don't suffer liars and scammers like yourself.

did someone give her a breathalyzer?

Fact is, the rich have a different set of law than the rest of us do, and you know it.

Why you try to pretend this isn't so is the mystery to me.

Laura Bush does not need to have been drunk to be in the wrong or to be negligent. She was talking to a passenger in her car. It was a Saturday night out and they were teenagers. She wasn't paying attention. When you are driving, you are required to pay attention and not go through stop lights and kill someone. She was negligent and should have paid. She was not even cited. She suffered no consequences. She killed someone because of negligence.

 

[dilloduck]

Oh, yes, he most certainly did admit to using cocaine and alcohol. No one is talking about going to jail for running a red light; I am talking about killing someone when you run a red light.

More name calling? Says what you are far more than it says anything at all about me. Name calling in a debate is a well known logical fallacy (ad hominem); i.e., those who have no real intellectual ammunition resort to name calling.

Sexual behavior is personal, individual. It isn't up to you to decide what is right or wrong or to make rules about what adults do in their private lives; and for you to say it is your right is very hypocritical if you are someone who says the government and others need to keep out of your personal life, which is what the right wing is always saying.

Okay. If you're not talking about going to jail then I have no idea why you mentioned her father keeping her out of trouble. What trouble? Was she going to have to wear a scarlet FC for fatal crash?

I am not doing an ad hominem fallacy because I'm clearly stating my cases. The name calling is just a little something for me to make sure you know how moronic I think your assertions are. And speaking of fallacies; it's a fallacy to assert that that the use of a name calling excludes intellectualism and rightness. But, nice try on that one.

As for sexual behavior in a public forum; it actually is up to you and me to decide what is right and wrong or rather what is acceptable and unacceptable. If I want to go have sex on the sidewalk; it's against the law. Furthermore, public opinion will always be a prevalent factor in any matter whether you like it or not.

And I said nothing that was hypocritical. Did I say I have the right to know everything about CP's sex life? No. But, when he gets exposed and it's out there, then I am within my rights to make judgments. None of that means that I'm against privacy. Nor is privacy a right wing concept by the way. Maybe, you just forgot cos your guy is in office. Somehow, it was a huge issue when Bush was in office. But, I'm use to libtard's revolving door values.

You apparently don't understand what fallacious thinking is. You are side stepping the issue regarding the inappropriateness of making an issue of a politician's personal sexual life. Also, inserting what is against the law is a red herring. Whether or not something is public opinion is not relevant to whether or not they are doing their job. Being a gossip and judging people on their personal behavior is one thing; saying someone doesn't have the right to hold a job because of their personal behavior is another. Assuming that it's okay to judge anyone based on what they might have done "when it gets out there" is completly without any logical or rational basis. And more name calling really does indicate the inability to think and to express yourself in rational, logical terms rather than using ad hominems. Done here. Some people are not worth the effort to debate. And that is not an ad hominem: it is truly what I think. I have no patience to spend my effort trying to reason with someone who is not capable of intellectually honest and reasoned thought.

That is a judgment is it not ? Sorry. Nice try Ezzy but you didn't sneak it through.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^
1. Being arrested for a DUI is different than being a drug addict and a drunk, is it not?
2. Do you not know the definition of accident? Why are you giving me details that support my statement? BTW, both drivers ran the stop sign too.
3. Did I say CP performed warrantless searches? You need to follow a train of thought without being a total butt fucking moron.
4. "Mean-spirited" LMAO. I don't suffer liars and scammers like yourself. Deal with it.

And pretty much why we judge you.

Laura Bush ran a stop sign and killed someone. But, hey, her daddy was rich, so they covered it up. I just want to keep this in mind next time you feel the urge to whine about Cappaquidick.

LOL. You judge people as long as the day is long. I don't care about your piddly judgments though.

Laura Bush was sober and ran a stop sign. It was an accident. Ted Kennedy was drunk and drove off a bridge. This is why you're an idiot. And that's not really me judging you. That's really more just stating the patently obvious. Hence, I refer you to my fourth point that I don't suffer liars and scammers like yourself.

She was negligent and I never debated that reality. And if the law called for consequences then she deserved them. However, fatal accidents are common and society does not tend to judge people too harshly in those instances would be my point. If you drive long enough, you're almost certain to do something negligent upon the road. Human error is an unavoidable reality.

 

[Esmeralda]

Okay. If you're not talking about going to jail then I have no idea why you mentioned her father keeping her out of trouble. What trouble? Was she going to have to wear a scarlet FC for fatal crash?

I am not doing an ad hominem fallacy because I'm clearly stating my cases. The name calling is just a little something for me to make sure you know how moronic I think your assertions are. And speaking of fallacies; it's a fallacy to assert that that the use of a name calling excludes intellectualism and rightness. But, nice try on that one.

As for sexual behavior in a public forum; it actually is up to you and me to decide what is right and wrong or rather what is acceptable and unacceptable. If I want to go have sex on the sidewalk; it's against the law. Furthermore, public opinion will always be a prevalent factor in any matter whether you like it or not.

And I said nothing that was hypocritical. Did I say I have the right to know everything about CP's sex life? No. But, when he gets exposed and it's out there, then I am within my rights to make judgments. None of that means that I'm against privacy. Nor is privacy a right wing concept by the way. Maybe, you just forgot cos your guy is in office. Somehow, it was a huge issue when Bush was in office. But, I'm use to libtard's revolving door values.

You apparently don't understand what fallacious thinking is. You are side stepping the issue regarding the inappropriateness of making an issue of a politician's personal sexual life. Also, inserting what is against the law is a red herring. Whether or not something is public opinion is not relevant to whether or not they are doing their job. Being a gossip and judging people on their personal behavior is one thing; saying someone doesn't have the right to hold a job because of their personal behavior is another. Assuming that it's okay to judge anyone based on what they might have done "when it gets out there" is completly without any logical or rational basis. And more name calling really does indicate the inability to think and to express yourself in rational, logical terms rather than using ad hominems. Done here. Some people are not worth the effort to debate. And that is not an ad hominem: it is truly what I think. I have no patience to spend my effort trying to reason with someone who is not capable of intellectually honest and reasoned thought.

That is a judgment is it not ? Sorry. Nice try Ezzy but you didn't sneak it through.

No, it isn't a 'judgment.' It is an assessment of his thinking and debating skills. I won't even make the effort to continue in a discussion with someone who doesn't make any logical points, who, in fact, thinks logic is something other than what it is. It's just too tiresome. Same goes for you if you think the words judgment and assessment are wholly synonymous. They aren't. I could take a lot of time and make a lot of effort to explain that to you, but I just do not have an interest in doing so. And my name is Esmeralda, Dildo. You want respect, give it. If you want disrespect, be disrespectful.

 

[dilloduck]

You apparently don't understand what fallacious thinking is. You are side stepping the issue regarding the inappropriateness of making an issue of a politician's personal sexual life. Also, inserting what is against the law is a red herring. Whether or not something is public opinion is not relevant to whether or not they are doing their job. Being a gossip and judging people on their personal behavior is one thing; saying someone doesn't have the right to hold a job because of their personal behavior is another. Assuming that it's okay to judge anyone based on what they might have done "when it gets out there" is completly without any logical or rational basis. And more name calling really does indicate the inability to think and to express yourself in rational, logical terms rather than using ad hominems. Done here. Some people are not worth the effort to debate. And that is not an ad hominem: it is truly what I think. I have no patience to spend my effort trying to reason with someone who is not capable of intellectually honest and reasoned thought.

That is a judgment is it not ? Sorry. Nice try Ezzy but you didn't sneak it through.

No, it isn't a 'judgment.' It is an assessment of his thinking and debating skills. I won't even make the effort to continue in a discussion with someone who doesn't make any logical points, who, in fact, thinks logic is something other than what it is. It's just too tiresome.

ya--I got the part where you were tired. Maybe it's from working to hard at trying to make a judgment appear to be an assessment. No biggie. It's classic Libspeak. Libs never make judgements or speak about people's personal lives.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Oh, yes, he most certainly did admit to using cocaine and alcohol. No one is talking about going to jail for running a red light; I am talking about killing someone when you run a red light.

More name calling? Says what you are far more than it says anything at all about me. Name calling in a debate is a well known logical fallacy (ad hominem); i.e., those who have no real intellectual ammunition resort to name calling.

Sexual behavior is personal, individual. It isn't up to you to decide what is right or wrong or to make rules about what adults do in their private lives; and for you to say it is your right is very hypocritical if you are someone who says the government and others need to keep out of your personal life, which is what the right wing is always saying.

Okay. If you're not talking about going to jail then I have no idea why you mentioned her father keeping her out of trouble. What trouble? Was she going to have to wear a scarlet FC for fatal crash?

I am not doing an ad hominem fallacy because I'm clearly stating my cases. The name calling is just a little something for me to make sure you know how moronic I think your assertions are. And speaking of fallacies; it's a fallacy to assert that that the use of a name calling excludes intellectualism and rightness. But, nice try on that one.

As for sexual behavior in a public forum; it actually is up to you and me to decide what is right and wrong or rather what is acceptable and unacceptable. If I want to go have sex on the sidewalk; it's against the law. Furthermore, public opinion will always be a prevalent factor in any matter whether you like it or not.

And I said nothing that was hypocritical. Did I say I have the right to know everything about CP's sex life? No. But, when he gets exposed and it's out there, then I am within my rights to make judgments. None of that means that I'm against privacy. Nor is privacy a right wing concept by the way. Maybe, you just forgot cos your guy is in office. Somehow, it was a huge issue when Bush was in office. But, I'm use to libtard's revolving door values.

You apparently don't understand what fallacious thinking is. You are side stepping the issue regarding the inappropriateness of making an issue of a politician's personal sexual life. Also, inserting what is against the law is a red herring. Whether or not something is public opinion is not relevant to whether or not they are doing their job. Being a gossip and judging people on their personal behavior is one thing; saying someone doesn't have the right to hold a job because of their personal behavior is another. Assuming that it's okay to judge anyone based on what they might have done "when it gets out there" is completly without any logical or rational basis. And more name calling really does indicate the inability to think and to express yourself in rational, logical terms rather than using ad hominems. Done here. Some people are not worth the effort to debate. And that is not an ad hominem: it is truly what I think. I have no patience to spend my effort trying to reason with someone who is not capable of intellectually honest and reasoned thought.

I very much know fallacious thinking and hence why I pointed out your fallacious logic, which you failed to acknowledge while continuing your own baseless accusations.

And I'm not sidestepping the appropriateness of a politician's sex life being an issue. I've said all along that it's a valid issue in as much as we know about it. There's nothing inappropriate about wanting fidelity from your leaders. You may want less. I don't.

Again, you put words into my mouth too. When did I say someone shouldn't have the right to hold office based on sexual behavior? I never said that. I did state that it's a valid issue though and voters are within their rights to consider it.

You can be done, but don't give me your drama, little girl that I haven't been intellectually honest because I called you a name. Again, THAT'S A FALLACY. Learn what fallacies are instead of going around and erroneously lecturing others what they are. IN FACT I'LL PUT THIS IN CAPS FOR YOUR SORRY ASS. USING A NAME IS NOT AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK IN AND OF ITSELF. IT'S ONLY A AD HOMINEM IF I USE THE NAME CALLING TO NOT REGARD YOUR ARGUMENT.

 

[Esmeralda]

Okay. If you're not talking about going to jail then I have no idea why you mentioned her father keeping her out of trouble. What trouble? Was she going to have to wear a scarlet FC for fatal crash?

I am not doing an ad hominem fallacy because I'm clearly stating my cases. The name calling is just a little something for me to make sure you know how moronic I think your assertions are. And speaking of fallacies; it's a fallacy to assert that that the use of a name calling excludes intellectualism and rightness. But, nice try on that one.

As for sexual behavior in a public forum; it actually is up to you and me to decide what is right and wrong or rather what is acceptable and unacceptable. If I want to go have sex on the sidewalk; it's against the law. Furthermore, public opinion will always be a prevalent factor in any matter whether you like it or not.

And I said nothing that was hypocritical. Did I say I have the right to know everything about CP's sex life? No. But, when he gets exposed and it's out there, then I am within my rights to make judgments. None of that means that I'm against privacy. Nor is privacy a right wing concept by the way. Maybe, you just forgot cos your guy is in office. Somehow, it was a huge issue when Bush was in office. But, I'm use to libtard's revolving door values.

You apparently don't understand what fallacious thinking is. You are side stepping the issue regarding the inappropriateness of making an issue of a politician's personal sexual life. Also, inserting what is against the law is a red herring. Whether or not something is public opinion is not relevant to whether or not they are doing their job. Being a gossip and judging people on their personal behavior is one thing; saying someone doesn't have the right to hold a job because of their personal behavior is another. Assuming that it's okay to judge anyone based on what they might have done "when it gets out there" is completly without any logical or rational basis. And more name calling really does indicate the inability to think and to express yourself in rational, logical terms rather than using ad hominems. Done here. Some people are not worth the effort to debate. And that is not an ad hominem: it is truly what I think. I have no patience to spend my effort trying to reason with someone who is not capable of intellectually honest and reasoned thought.

I very much know fallacious thinking and hence why I pointed out your fallacious logic, which you failed to acknowledge while continuing your own baseless accusations.

And I'm not sidestepping the appropriateness of a politician's sex life being an issue. I've said all along that it's a valid issue in as much as we know about it. There's nothing inappropriate about wanting fidelity from your leaders. You may want less. I don't.

Again, you put words into my mouth too. When did I say someone shouldn't have the right to hold office based on sexual behavior? I never said that. I did state that it's a valid issue though and voters are within their rights to consider it.

You can be done, but don't give me your drama, little girl that I haven't been intellectually honest because I called you a name. Again, THAT'S A FALLACY. Learn what fallacies are instead of going around and erroneously lecturing others what they are. IN FACT I'LL PUT THIS IN CAPS FOR YOUR SORRY ASS. USING A NAME IS NOT AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK IN AND OF ITSELF. IT'S ONLY A AD HOMINEM IF I USE THE NAME CALLING TO NOT REGARD YOUR ARGUMENT.

Name calling in a debate is an ad hominem. Logic 101.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You apparently don't understand what fallacious thinking is. You are side stepping the issue regarding the inappropriateness of making an issue of a politician's personal sexual life. Also, inserting what is against the law is a red herring. Whether or not something is public opinion is not relevant to whether or not they are doing their job. Being a gossip and judging people on their personal behavior is one thing; saying someone doesn't have the right to hold a job because of their personal behavior is another. Assuming that it's okay to judge anyone based on what they might have done "when it gets out there" is completly without any logical or rational basis. And more name calling really does indicate the inability to think and to express yourself in rational, logical terms rather than using ad hominems. Done here. Some people are not worth the effort to debate. And that is not an ad hominem: it is truly what I think. I have no patience to spend my effort trying to reason with someone who is not capable of intellectually honest and reasoned thought.

I very much know fallacious thinking and hence why I pointed out your fallacious logic, which you failed to acknowledge while continuing your own baseless accusations.

And I'm not sidestepping the appropriateness of a politician's sex life being an issue. I've said all along that it's a valid issue in as much as we know about it. There's nothing inappropriate about wanting fidelity from your leaders. You may want less. I don't.

Again, you put words into my mouth too. When did I say someone shouldn't have the right to hold office based on sexual behavior? I never said that. I did state that it's a valid issue though and voters are within their rights to consider it.

You can be done, but don't give me your drama, little girl that I haven't been intellectually honest because I called you a name. Again, THAT'S A FALLACY. Learn what fallacies are instead of going around and erroneously lecturing others what they are. IN FACT I'LL PUT THIS IN CAPS FOR YOUR SORRY ASS. USING A NAME IS NOT AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK IN AND OF ITSELF. IT'S ONLY A AD HOMINEM IF I USE THE NAME CALLING TO NOT REGARD YOUR ARGUMENT.

Name calling in a debate is an ad hominem. Logic 101.

Actually; it's not. To say so, would be to say that people are not logically allowed to judge. Does that sound logical to you? Again, learn what the fallacies are before you erroneously use them. To do so is idiotic. And that my friend is actually a logical conclusion.

 

[dilloduck]

Liberals feel entirely justified when they "assess" a conservative's private life to include his/her sexual behavior.
Claiming the high moral ground doesn't make it moral ground. You're merely another hypocrite, Esmerelda.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Liberals feel entirely justified when they "assess" a conservative's private life to include his/her sexual behavior.
Claiming the high moral ground doesn't make it moral ground. You're merely another hypocrite, Esmerelda.

I don't know if she is or is not. We all are at some point on something is my experience. But, I do think that liberals have revolving door values and I think they know it too. It'll always be an us vs. them scenario on any issue.

 

[depotoo]

Oh, yes, he most certainly did admit to using cocaine and alcohol. No one is talking about going to jail for running a red light; I am talking about killing someone when you run a red light.

More name calling? Says what you are far more than it says anything at all about me. Name calling in a debate is a well known logical fallacy (ad hominem); i.e., those who have no real intellectual ammunition resort to name calling.

Sexual behavior is personal, individual. It isn't up to you to decide what is right or wrong or to make rules about what adults do in their private lives; and for you to say it is your right is very hypocritical if you are someone who says the government and others need to keep out of your personal life, which is what the right wing is always saying.

Okay. If you're not talking about going to jail then I have no idea why you mentioned her father keeping her out of trouble. What trouble? Was she going to have to wear a scarlet FC for fatal crash?

I am not doing an ad hominem fallacy because I'm clearly stating my cases. The name calling is just a little something for me to make sure you know how moronic I think your assertions are. And speaking of fallacies; it's a fallacy to assert that that the use of a name calling excludes intellectualism and rightness. But, nice try on that one.

As for sexual behavior in a public forum; it actually is up to you and me to decide what is right and wrong or rather what is acceptable and unacceptable. If I want to go have sex on the sidewalk; it's against the law. Furthermore, public opinion will always be a prevalent factor in any matter whether you like it or not.

And I said nothing that was hypocritical. Did I say I have the right to know everything about CP's sex life? No. But, when he gets exposed and it's out there, then I am within my rights to make judgments. None of that means that I'm against privacy. Nor is privacy a right wing concept by the way. Maybe, you just forgot cos your guy is in office. Somehow, it was a huge issue when Bush was in office. But, I'm use to libtard's revolving door values.

You apparently don't understand what fallacious thinking is. You are side stepping the issue regarding the inappropriateness of making an issue of a politician's personal sexual life. Also, inserting what is against the law is a red herring. Whether or not something is public opinion is not relevant to whether or not they are doing their job. Being a gossip and judging people on their personal behavior is one thing; saying someone doesn't have the right to hold a job because of their personal behavior is another. Assuming that it's okay to judge anyone based on what they might have done "when it gets out there" is completly without any logical or rational basis. And more name calling really does indicate the inability to think and to express yourself in rational, logical terms rather than using ad hominems. Done here. Some people are not worth the effort to debate. And that is not an ad hominem: it is truly what I think. I have no patience to spend my effort trying to reason with someone who is not capable of intellectually honest and reasoned thought.

do you not see the foolhardy of a public official, particularly within our state department, having an affair, particularly with foreigners? Do you not see the fact they are now in a position that if that person overhears anything, sees anything, can now use it as blackmail? Or they could sell that info to the highest bidder? Or they could possibly be a spy?

 

[dilloduck]

Okay. If you're not talking about going to jail then I have no idea why you mentioned her father keeping her out of trouble. What trouble? Was she going to have to wear a scarlet FC for fatal crash?

I am not doing an ad hominem fallacy because I'm clearly stating my cases. The name calling is just a little something for me to make sure you know how moronic I think your assertions are. And speaking of fallacies; it's a fallacy to assert that that the use of a name calling excludes intellectualism and rightness. But, nice try on that one.

As for sexual behavior in a public forum; it actually is up to you and me to decide what is right and wrong or rather what is acceptable and unacceptable. If I want to go have sex on the sidewalk; it's against the law. Furthermore, public opinion will always be a prevalent factor in any matter whether you like it or not.

And I said nothing that was hypocritical. Did I say I have the right to know everything about CP's sex life? No. But, when he gets exposed and it's out there, then I am within my rights to make judgments. None of that means that I'm against privacy. Nor is privacy a right wing concept by the way. Maybe, you just forgot cos your guy is in office. Somehow, it was a huge issue when Bush was in office. But, I'm use to libtard's revolving door values.

You apparently don't understand what fallacious thinking is. You are side stepping the issue regarding the inappropriateness of making an issue of a politician's personal sexual life. Also, inserting what is against the law is a red herring. Whether or not something is public opinion is not relevant to whether or not they are doing their job. Being a gossip and judging people on their personal behavior is one thing; saying someone doesn't have the right to hold a job because of their personal behavior is another. Assuming that it's okay to judge anyone based on what they might have done "when it gets out there" is completly without any logical or rational basis. And more name calling really does indicate the inability to think and to express yourself in rational, logical terms rather than using ad hominems. Done here. Some people are not worth the effort to debate. And that is not an ad hominem: it is truly what I think. I have no patience to spend my effort trying to reason with someone who is not capable of intellectually honest and reasoned thought.

do you not see the foolhardy of a public official, particularly within our state department, having an affair, particularly with foreigners? Do you not see the fact they are now in a position that if that person overhears anything, sees anything, can now use it as blackmail? Or they could sell that info to the highest bidder? Or they could possibly be a spy?

Apparently the feeling is "hands off". I'm really curious as to why we feel this need to protect Colin.