• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ensign: I did nothing "legally" wrong

Arguable.

So you're in favor of Professors sleeping with their students, bosses sleeping with their subordinates, doctors sleeping with their patients, lawyers diddling their clients? You think these are all accusations that the various agencies and boards overseeing these various things should not look into when its accused of happening?

Are they all adults? Are they breaking any laws or contracts they have agreed to? If not, no.
 
Irony is your middle name; you attempt to derail just about every thread you enter with your vast right Wing conspiracies and hypocrisy.

The only thing that surprises me here is that you didn't somehow link Bush to this affair. :rofl

Now that's punny.
 
Its between the individual consenting adults

Are they all adults? Are they breaking any laws or contracts they have agreed to? If not, no.

To each their own. Perhaps this is my experience as an instructor coming through more so than it should, but I see that as nothing more than an abuse of ones power and position as a superior to the person you're engaging in such acts with. I do know almost any instructorial type organizations tend to have rules against such, I believe the medical profession does as do lawyers I believe, and most corporations. Perhaps I am wrong to believe the President of the United States should be held to a higher standard of responsability in the power vested in them through their office and their power and sway over people than I would a manager of a retail chain or a karate instructor.
 
Are they all adults? Are they breaking any laws or contracts they have agreed to? If not, no.

They are also offences bad enough to get you thrown out of your job, get your license to practice revoked, and get you disbarred.... any idea of why?

Or are you as morally bankrupt as most libs.
 
Redress is hardly someone I'd call morally bankrupt. One can believe that a position should not be held to certain moral standards but rather legal standards and still HAVE said moral standards. While I may not agree with Redress's take on this, if all he/she cares about is whether or not they broke the law then that's understandable and not necessarily morally bankrupted. That said, in that case, regardless of whether the investigation was just or not a law, a felony, was broken so I'd hope there was consistency there in redress's view on Clinton upon breaking a law.
 
To each their own. Perhaps this is my experience as an instructor coming through more so than it should, but I see that as nothing more than an abuse of ones power and position as a superior to the person you're engaging in such acts with. I do know almost any instructorial type organizations tend to have rules against such, I believe the medical profession does as do lawyers I believe, and most corporations. Perhaps I am wrong to believe the President of the United States should be held to a higher standard of responsability in the power vested in them through their office and their power and sway over people than I would a manager of a retail chain or a karate instructor.


If there were any indication that it were anything other than consensual I think it would be a different story. But just because one person is in a higher position of authority than the other, there is no indication that there is anything improper about the relationship.
 
Redress is hardly someone I'd call morally bankrupt. One can believe that a position should not be held to certain moral standards but rather legal standards and still HAVE said moral standards. While I may not agree with Redress's take on this, if all he/she cares about is whether or not they broke the law then that's understandable and not necessarily morally bankrupted. That said, in that case, regardless of whether the investigation was just or not a law, a felony, was broken so I'd hope there was consistency there in redress's view on Clinton upon breaking a law.

You'll notice I didn't call redress "moraly bankrupt".... you did notice that, right?
 
They are also offences bad enough to get you thrown out of your job, get your license to practice revoked, and get you disbarred.... any idea of why?

Or are you as morally bankrupt as most libs.

Wow...now its that Libs who are morally bankrupt? And all those Republican sex scandals were about what?
 
Agreed. Now should it have really come to that??? :doh

Absolutely not.

It was a partisan witch hunt from the beginning and a huge waste of taxpayer money.
I think the whole mess got way out of hand, but the investigation started out on credible terrain--as I recall what got Ken Starr involved was the appearance that Slick Willie moved Ms Monica out of the White House to keep her at arm's length from Paula Jones, who was looking for witnesses for her sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton. Using his official capacity as President in that way to hinder a lawsuit against him would merit investigation as an abuse of power.

Did it need to explode into an entire impeachment proceeding? No--but Slick Willie carries a large share of that responsibility as well, because he tried to stonewall Ken Starr about the whole mess.
 
That's right...you just questioned it. Big difference:roll:

I asked if he/she knew why the law is what it is so a person would lose their job, license, or be disbarred for engaging in sexual relations with a subordinate, patient, student, or client.

Do you know why there is that law?
 
I asked if he/she knew why the law is what it is so a person would lose their job, license, or be disbarred for engaging in sexual relations with a subordinate, patient, student, or client.

Do you know why there is that law?

No...what you said and what we are referring to is this:

Crunch said:
Or are you as morally bankrupt as most libs.
 
No...what you said and what we are referring to is this:

I know exactly what you are refering to.

Are you saying you don't know the reason for this?

Originally Posted by Crunch
I asked if he/she knew why the law is what it is so a person would lose their job, license, or be disbarred for engaging in sexual relations with a subordinate, patient, student, or client.

Do you know why there is that law?
 
Care to explain exactly what it is that you think he did wrong and how that should be punished?

He demonstrated that he can not be trusted, that his solemn oath means nothing.

We should remove our faith in his ability to execute the duties of his office and remove him.
 
They are also offences bad enough to get you thrown out of your job, get your license to practice revoked, and get you disbarred.... any idea of why?

Or are you as morally bankrupt as most libs.

Hmmm, so if you can get thrown out of your job, get your liscense revoked, or get disbarred, there is probably a contract of some sort saying you cannot do it, so I covered that.
 
Redress is hardly someone I'd call morally bankrupt. One can believe that a position should not be held to certain moral standards but rather legal standards and still HAVE said moral standards. While I may not agree with Redress's take on this, if all he/she cares about is whether or not they broke the law then that's understandable and not necessarily morally bankrupted. That said, in that case, regardless of whether the investigation was just or not a law, a felony, was broken so I'd hope there was consistency there in redress's view on Clinton upon breaking a law.

I cannot control peoples moral choices, and I don't believe in forcing people into generalities. Would I is a far different question than should people be allowed to.

I think you know my view on politicians and the law. I think party politics should not be a factor, and if you break the law, you should be tried, convicted and punished, no matter what party or political philosophy you are.

Side not on that: I find it interesting how conservatives love to bring up Clinton, and yet today, with the accusation made by Ridge that Bush used Homeland Security to manipulate an election result, conservatives seem to have a kinda "meh" attitude, and yet this is much more serious(practically if not legally) than anything Clinton did.
 
You'll notice I didn't call redress "moraly bankrupt".... you did notice that, right?

No, you called liberals "morally bankrupt", and, guess what, I am a liberal...
 
Arguable.

So you're in favor of Professors sleeping with their students, bosses sleeping with their subordinates, doctors sleeping with their patients, lawyers diddling their clients? You think these are all accusations that the various agencies and boards overseeing these various things should not look into when its accused of happening?

1) Professors sleeping with their students:

I think it's morally bankrupt, and possibly a conflict of interest, but not worthy of of any type of mass investigation. An ombudsman can handle this.


2) Bosses sleeping with their subordinates:

A possible a conflict of interest, which can happen quite a bit in the workplace (ass kissers can get away with lot too). Is it wrong? Possibly, but not worthy of a mass investigation and litigation.

3) doctors sleeping with their patients:

Not sure in the US, but it's against the law here. The doctor would most likely lose his/her license.

4) lawyers diddling their clients:

I bet this happens lots, and I see nothing wrong with it if both are consenting.

What Clinton did was morally bankrupt, but it was nothing that broke any law. A multi-million dollar witch hunt was not necessary and did absolutely nothing but disrupt his Presidency.
 
Myself, being a Social Conservative, I want to see the Party as well as the voters reject this guy. If someone can't keep their marriage vows, can't keep their mitts of of a supposed friend's wife, and can then stand to show his face in public, I say he cannot be trusted with political power.

Agreed. :2wave:
 
Care to explain exactly what it is that you think he did wrong and how that should be punished?

Actually he did not do anything wrong at all if one accepts cheating on wife with the wife of best friend who he also betrayed but hell he got his parents to payy of the husband of the cheating wife in a sorted 'sort of' Indecent Proposal !!!
 
He demonstrated that he can not be trusted, that his solemn oath means nothing.

We should remove our faith in his ability to execute the duties of his office and remove him.

Ah yes, so you are without sin correct?

Aren't you supposed to hate the sin, but forgive the sinner?

Another hypocrite from the Christian side.
 
Ah yes, so you are without sin correct?

Aren't you supposed to hate the sin, but forgive the sinner?

Another hypocrite from the Christian side.

Oh look who decided to crawl out from under the bridge.
 
Oh look who decided to crawl out from under the bridge.

Yes, I know you have.

However, that still doesn't address your hypocrisy, imagine that.

I always enjoy hearing how self righteous you think you are.
 
Hmmm, so if you can get thrown out of your job, get your liscense revoked, or get disbarred, there is probably a contract of some sort saying you cannot do it, so I covered that.

No.... other than the executive that is banging his secretary, the lawyer, the school teacher, and the doctor are all covered by LAW.... can you tell me why?
 
Back
Top Bottom