Skip to comments.
Mark Sanford Is a Scumbag
www.politicalcastaway.com ^
| 03 July 09
| Pitcairn
Posted on 07/02/2009 10:15:30 PM PDT by Pitcairn
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-96 next last
To: period end of story
The clarification is that if you think Mark Sanford should be saved, you are out of your mind. Akin to the reason that William Jefferson Clinton was impeached so too should Mark Sanford face the reality of his lying and cheating.
Is this too much to ask of American politicans or should we just go the way of valueless Europe and the savages of the Middle East?
41
posted on
07/02/2009 11:30:22 PM PDT
by
Pitcairn
To: Pitcairn
Your post is interesting.
The Constitution does not address fornication and adultery. That is in the Bible.
If the good people of South Carolina decide to forgive Sanford, that is their choice. Not the federal governments.
The founding fathers were not “chaste”.
When you get some time, you may want to read the Constitution.
Have a good evening.
42
posted on
07/02/2009 11:31:45 PM PDT
by
berdie
(Philosophies of the school room in one generation will reflect the government philosophy of the next)
To: Pitcairn
Clinton lied under oath, kiddo.
43
posted on
07/02/2009 11:32:29 PM PDT
by
period end of story
(Give me a firm spot, and I will move the world.)
To: Pitcairn
No. He is a “Horney” Scumbag.
That only makes him HALF bad.
You also have to understand that while under the influence of being “Horney” you can often become a “Scumbag” by default.
44
posted on
07/02/2009 11:40:30 PM PDT
by
jongaltsr
(Hope to See ya in Galt's Gulch.)
To: berdie
You may want to read the Constitution as well, since there is nothing in there about how men should treat their wives or how they should treat the people they supposedly represent.
This issue has nothing to do with Constitutional legality. This issue has to do with whether an elected official should remain as such without a modicum of moral integrity.
45
posted on
07/02/2009 11:41:08 PM PDT
by
Pitcairn
To: Pitcairn
Didn’t Ted Kennedy kill a girl a few years back? Perhaps you should worry about that.
To: jongaltsr
Fine to be “horney.” But be a private “horney” citizen then rather than a governor.
There are plenty of other potential governors out there that need no sink to the lowest common denominator of the society they are supposed to lead toward a higher standard of conduct.
47
posted on
07/02/2009 11:47:21 PM PDT
by
Pitcairn
To: Pitcairn
"There are plenty of other potential governors out there that need no sink to the lowest common denominator of the society they are supposed to lead toward a higher standard of conduct."
You are giving the other governors just to much credit. "Horney" ALWAY'S overrules higher standard of conduct in politics.
Unless you keep your "Horneyness" at home!
48
posted on
07/02/2009 11:51:48 PM PDT
by
jongaltsr
(Hope to See ya in Galt's Gulch.)
To: Pitcairn
There are plenty of other potential governors out there that need no sink to the lowest common denominator of the society they are supposed to lead toward a higher standard of conduct. "People" are supposed to do that for themselves, or they are truly lost.
49
posted on
07/02/2009 11:52:16 PM PDT
by
period end of story
(Give me a firm spot, and I will move the world.)
To: period end of story
Does it really make any sense to say that lying need be only under oath to be wrong and therefore, then only, grounds to no longer hold public office, kiddo?
I don’t think so.
50
posted on
07/02/2009 11:54:04 PM PDT
by
Pitcairn
To: jongaltsr
It’s been said that a woman needs a reason to have sex, and a man just needs a place. (if that)
51
posted on
07/02/2009 11:54:28 PM PDT
by
period end of story
(Give me a firm spot, and I will move the world.)
To: Pitcairn
Well, it appears we may agree, in part.
If you live in South Carolina and have the opportunity, vote the guy out of office, do it.
If you live in Mississippi...it's not your business. Or the Feds business.
Is he immoral...absolutely. It is a soap opera. I live in Texas. My vote would not count.
Do you really want the Feds to have that kind of control?
52
posted on
07/02/2009 11:56:36 PM PDT
by
berdie
(Philosophies of the school room in one generation will reflect the government philosophy of the next)
To: period end of story
So, then,why even have elected “leaders” if the “people” can lead themselves?
53
posted on
07/02/2009 11:57:38 PM PDT
by
Pitcairn
To: Pitcairn
Does it really make any sense to say that lying need be only under oath to be wrong and therefore, then only, grounds to no longer hold public office.... When you bring up the threat of impeachment: YES.
....kiddo?
Don't steal my stuff, kiddo!
54
posted on
07/03/2009 12:00:14 AM PDT
by
period end of story
(Give me a firm spot, and I will move the world.)
To: berdie
I am with you on states rights.
That being said, the Sanford is a dirt bag and his state's polity should vote him out or their legislature take action to impeach him.
Regardless of the procedural debate, the man is a flat out liar who, in my opinion, should no longer hold public office.
55
posted on
07/03/2009 12:02:02 AM PDT
by
Pitcairn
To: period end of story
Kiddo, we are in agreement.
Although, I deny that anything was stolen.
56
posted on
07/03/2009 12:04:23 AM PDT
by
Pitcairn
To: Pitcairn
So, then,why even have elected leaders if the people can lead themselves? Don't make stuff up, kiddo.
57
posted on
07/03/2009 12:04:24 AM PDT
by
period end of story
(Give me a firm spot, and I will move the world.)
To: Pitcairn
If I lived in South Carolina, I would be up in arms over this. If the man tries to take a national office, I would not support him. He has lost any chance he had of reelection or election to another office through his behavior, but I believe the Lt. Gov is a Dim, so the people might not wish to trade one scumbag for another.
58
posted on
07/03/2009 12:31:55 AM PDT
by
Ingtar
(Americans have truly let America down. A sad day.)
To: vigilante2
Dims dont resign why should he? Because Republicans are so supposed to represent the better angels of our nature. They are supposed to stand for Judeo-Christian values.
It is the Democrats that stand for Satan, immorality, homosexuality, abortion of the innocent (even outside the birth canal), theft, socialism, welfare, racsim, etc.
59
posted on
07/03/2009 12:32:29 AM PDT
by
SkyPilot
To: SkyPilot
Because Republicans are so supposed to represent the better angels of our nature.Lincoln fell short, we all fall short. Claro que...republicans are the better angels of our nature? Who buys that happy horse **** they are all bought and paid for in one way or another. If he repents can we not forgive?
60
posted on
07/03/2009 12:43:07 AM PDT
by
Dosa26
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-96 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson