- Joined
- Sep 9, 2011
- Messages
- 13,745
- Reaction score
- 8,546
- Location
- North 38°28′ West 121°26′
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
He's projecting, thinking others are the same.
That is what I am suspecting as well.
He's projecting, thinking others are the same.
So what? You're just throwing flak now. You made an assertion, I showed it to be false. Now you're pulling out the kitchen sink. None of that had to do with Clinton's choice to lie under oath. And btw, not my state, I don't get to vote on Vitter.
I didn't vote for Clinton either. You seem to agree with me that his commitment to Hillary, his wife, is the most important commitment, and if he can betray that, he could easily betray his lesser commitments, like to the office and the country.
That's why I don't vote for adulterers.
No, that so. The President does not declare war, not in the powers of office. Congress declares war.
I don't know what I'd do in that situation. I've never been in it, and I can see no realistic possibility that I ever will. In order to get into that situation, I would have to have acted in a manner that is so far outside of what is normal for me, that I do not see any valid basis on which to speculate about how I would act in that situation, based on the personality of myself who would never get in that situation in the first place.
I do think that most men are more honest than you assume. Perhaps you use yourself as the standard of honesty which you think applies to most men,and as a consequence, are greatly underestimating most others.
But really, the whole point of my jumping into this discussion was to respond to this:
I have to say that I just don't get it. Either I completely disagree with what you were trying to say here, or else I have no idea what you are trying to say. If it makes any sense at all, then it surely must make sense only to someone who values honesty far less than I do.
So...you wouldn't have voted for Eisenhower, Reagan...or George Washington, for that matter. How about edjimicating yourself on adultery in the presidency - it's not for nothing that it is said that power is the best aphrodisiac.
What you - and Blaylock, apparently - are not getting is that we all have feet of clay.
Mm-hmm...and I suppose you haven't heard of the War Powers Act wherein the president can initiate combat and then Congress would be presented with a fait accompli, a choice of whether to pull our troops out of the combat they're already engaged in, or to go full tilt for the war (which is precisely what has happened several times since the Act was passed).
BTW - I did not say that the president DECLARED war, did I? I said that they have TAKEN us to war...and that is a very, very accurate statement. All it takes is skillful use of the bully pulpit.
LOL !
It's NOT ABOUT STATISTICS and there would be no need for " revisions " if the NOAA had used measurements based on empirical research and not manipulated data for the sole purpose of producing the desired results.
Before the manufactured false narrative of AGW there existed a universally agreed upon set of Scientific standards. A list of specific techniques agreed upon by the International Scientific community used for investigating either old or new phenomena.
In order for that method to be considered " Scientific ", any and all methods of inquiry HAD TO BASED ON EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. That's observations based on ACCURATE measurements.
It's how they achieved the temperature data from the 30's.
The reason why it's SO IMPORTANT to adhere to these LONG HELD standards and to use ACCURATE measurements based on THE EMPIRICAL PROCESS is to REMOVE BIAS.
It doesn't matter how many times you people embarrass yourselves with your claims of exclusivity as you butcher age old and widely accepted Scientific principles, the definition of what's Scientific and what's NOT Scientific has never changed.
The NOAA didn't make any temperature offsets to the original data from the 30's, THEY MANIPULATED THEIR MEASUREMENTS to reflect a desired outcome.
What the NOAA did what to invite bias into the Scientific debate on Global warming as they used a corrupted process meant to achieve a predetermined outcome and you people have the nerve to call it " Science "
Unreal.
Had I known about their affairs, no I wouldn't have. There's an old historian's joke about George. He didn't earn the title Father of our Country by serving as general or becoming the first president, but because he probably was father to the majority of the new country's children.
Btw, I didn't vote for Reagan, either time. I was unaware of his infidelities, but I knew him from his time as California's governor. We called him Clayfoot Reagan. And Eisenhower, no one knew that until years after he was dead.
Now, JFK, total douche. Had the press in his pocket. Not sure who were the bigger racketeers, he and his brothers or the Mafia.
Really?
Then you'd also fire many CEO's. You'd fire many department heads. You'd fire some of your best and brightest. You'd fire Einstein - and yes, he also had an extramarital affair.
You really need to get off your moral high horse, and remember that what goes on behind closed doors - as long as it is not abusive - does not determine whether or not the person is the best man - or woman - for the job.
Rubbish and rank hyperbole. I don't vote to elect CEOs or mathematicians to represent me, to be the leader of my nation. And one of the qualities I value for the job of POTUS is faithfulness to commitments. I want to know they will FAITHFULLY execute their office. I don't really care if CEOs or mathematicians are faithful to their duties.
Btw, just so you know, it wasn't just an extramarital affair in Einstein's case, it was also incest.
In other words, really, guy, what goes on behind closed doors - as long as it is not abusive - has NO bearing on a man's trustworthiness on the job.
I wouldn't go that far - that it has NO bearing - but certainly agree that it's only one factor to consider, and can be overwhelmed by many other aspects of a person's character and how that's revealed in his or her daily lives. I've known plenty of otherwise good men and women who cheated on their spouses at some point. Lots of reasons that can occur, and in several cases, the couples reconciled and are happily married years later. Other times the affairs were reflections of marriages that were completely broken in all but name. Fact is we're complicated animals and attempts to use simple rules to classify us based on single factors are almost guaranteed to fail in real life. For example, which is worse - a person having an affair, or two affairs, or a person who makes his life's purpose the pursuit of power or money or success or fame, and therefore inevitably puts his or her family behind those pursuits? It would depend...