Posted on 12/20/2011 11:17:18 AM PST by wolfman23601
You post about divorce was full-on moral equivalence.
And?..........
It’s unusual for a conservative to say that the guilty are innocent and the innocent are guilty, which is the gist of moral equivalence. That’s what you did, when you said you couldn’t care less if Reagan was faithful to his first wife and was heartbroken by the divorce, or that Newt screwed around on two wives w younger women and actually precipitated his divorces. That’s the kind of moral logic that is standard in liberal circles, but it’s unusual to see it embraced so bluntly on a conservative site.
But Newt, he be got da "baggage".
I couldn’t care less about another person’s sin.....its not my business. I find it amazing that we even know such personal information about another individual’s life. I only care the kind of relationship I have with that individual (student/teacher, boss/employee, president/citizen, etc.), and if he or she is doing right by me in that relationship. Did the president cheat on his wife? I don’t know, and I don’t care. Did he cheat on me and my country and my fellow citizens? By dogging me and the USA in a foreign land, Obama cheated, and he’s outta here.
Attacking the poster.......typical response when you can’t participate in a thoughtful manner.
Traditionally conservatives have held that character counts. The view you just expressed, B, is identical to the one put forth by Clinton’s defenders after he was found cheating in the WH.
Ditto to your post, Chuckles. We are now, it appears, using the least moral Democrats as yardsticks and discovering that Newt measures up very well.
My takeaway is Newt is turning us into the moral equivalence of Dems. I hope it works out in the long run, but I’ve got my doubts.
Seriosuly, what does me being a Christian have to do with a President’s personal life? I ask this of you with all due respect, explain that to me.
Ashleymadison.com is evil, they’re a website that enables adultery. How did they come up with their name? They chose the two most popular names for baby girls. Vile.
Was that view used to defend Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Wilson, Guiliani?.........the list goes on........
I’m weary of looking at sexual scandals when there is plenty of political and professional ammunition to use against a candidate to exclude their eligibility.
And incidentally, its early, and I have no idea how I will vote at this point........so much can happen in the next year.......we might even get a new candidate. *shrug*
I only posted to you originally because I was surprised to see such a naked, bald morally equivalent statement/position championed on a conservative site. If conservatism is moving in the direction of adopting this truly sick and abominable moral position, then I’m shocked and dismayed. I don’t think it is, though. Moral equivalence is one of the most twisted and vicious concepts the left has ever dreamed up. The Bible condemns it in so many words—and virulently, at that. Individual conservatives may drift off into an embrace of moral equivalence, but I don’t see how the movement can do it as a whole and hope to survive.
When the GOP decides to take off the gloves and fight Obama as the left fights our side, ping me.
Otherwise, I am sick of it.
It is so easy to be disgusting scumbags on the Rats side. All they need to do is to dream up disgusting websites, throw the support to a Repub candidate, and make it widely known. Candidate brought down a notch or two. We are surely fighting the evil empire.
So why did Reagan’s first wife divorce him?
Pretty tough on a guy you've never met. I'm as much Christian as you can get and I do care about character, but I'm hiring someone to fix what the Dems have destroyed. I think he can fix it. Just as I hire someone to roof my house, I don't ask if they have been married before. My father had been divorced and he was a great man and a WWII hero winning the DFC with 4 oak leaf clusters. He started a business with nothing but a handshake on credit and paid it all back pronto. He had credit to the point he could call the local car dealer and have his Cadilac delivered with no paperwork until he got around to it. He made a call to the bank to get a loan with nothing but his name. They knew who he was and knew he was good for it. His word was his bond. He taught me to have character because everyone knew I was his son and he didn't want me to embarrass him. I married once to a 17year old and I was 19. I'm 60 now and still married to the same girl. My father stayed married to my mother for 54 years until he died. His previous marriage didn't seem to make him a slug that could never hold another job and was to be shunned by society.
Politics is a dirty business and he's been in it to his eyeballs for 30+ years so I'm sure there are some things he's done he would rather not admit. He has the ideas and he knows how to work the Dems to get what he wants. He balanced the budget for goodness sake! He's shoved welfare reform up the Dems rear ends and they take credit for it.
Cain was a Baptist preacher and never missed a Sunday in Church, but other Christians dropped him like a hot rock when the crap started. There is still no proof of him doing any wrong, but this will stain him forever. If he is nominated for some Secretary position, will we shun him still over nothing? I'll save my revulsion for Dems that don't even pretend to be in the human race rather than destroy the best chance we have for changing America for the better. Romney is everything a Christian could want, one marriage, family man, no drinking, no smoking, attends church, what else could you want? How about someone that believes Jesus is Lord over J Smith and doesn't live on Kolob? Bachmann being devout Christian doesn't make her the most qualified to run the country either. Paul goes to church regularly and wants legal dope. ( not to mention his foreign policy). Perry gave Guardacil to teens without their parents approval so their sex wouldn't kill them, but he goes to church regularly.
I’ll start worrying about Newt’s marital situation as soon as we start announcing the results of our elections with puffs of white smoke - until then, It’s not relevant !
I’ll start worrying about Newt’s marital situation as soon as we start announcing the results of our elections with puffs of white smoke - until then, It’s not relevant !
My response to you wasn’t even about Newt himself. It’s about how conservatives are going full throttle moral equivalence to defend him. Take your example. Kennedy had women, Clinton had women, FDR had a mistress, etc. When a conservative puts forth a list of immoral Dems and uses it to justify Newt, that is an argument based on moral equivalence. That was my whole/sole point. If there are moral absolutes, then you measure yourself and others against those. If it’s all relative, then you pick whatever yardstick you feel most comfortable with and use that.
For instance, on this thread alone you have people saying it doesn’t matter which party in a divorce is guilty and which is innocent; they are both equally innocent and equally guilty regardless of which one cheated and which one didn’t. That is moral equivalence. Ditto the idea that if enough Dems commit adultery then it’s okay for ours to do likewise.
The bottom line is that that is the moral ‘logic’ of the liberal left, and has not traditionally been the position of conservatives, much less Christians. That was the only point I was making.
If you like Newt apart from his adultery, that’s a different matter. All I’m saying is that it’s a new development to see so many conservatives resorting to moral equivalence to defend a candidate. I hope it’s not the trend of the future. We already have one party doing that and the results are hideous. If conservatives join liberals in full bore moral equivalence, we really will be sunk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.