Posted on 09/22/2005 5:48:16 PM PDT by wagglebee
It's simply amazing how nobody had affairs or gave or received BJs before Clinton and suddenly, BOOM, he gets elected and everybody's doing it!! I'm not sure why nobody thought of it or gave in to temptation before he took office.
While it is not an excuse, I believe that in the majority of these instances the wife (historically it was usually only the man who was unfaithful) was fully aware of the situation and was not opposed to it.
It's still common & reasonably accepted today in France and Italy to have mistresses. That's one good thing about them. ;o)
I know all Catholic, and more than a few LCMS, pastors will not marry someone if they have signed a pre nup.
How very racist of you.
It's got nothing to do with race. He's advocating execution of adulterers...like a muslim country.
Which brings up a very good point. Not all of us have the same vices (for lack of a better word). Put me in a room full of beautiful women and and my wife isn't worried one bit. Put me in the gun shop with a few hundred dollars of cash and she is scared to death what will follow me home.
Any temptation I have to buy another handgun is tempered by the shame that my wife can out shoot me with my 1911.
In regards to the internet, does anyone believe have 'cyber-sex' is cheating? Assuming one is married.
And by 'cyber-sex' I mean chatting between 2 people. Your thoughts.
yep, so I think they are married but just want to fool around and not get involved with all the legal stuff of divorce plus...if they can continue to sneak around with no one knowing...they have it made. Sad, huh?
That may be true. However, there is no denying it has the appearance of what some would insist is a racial slur.
You guys have a marriage like ours. I stayed home too and believe me...we could have used the extra money I could have made but...the kids had what they needed. They had Sunday shoes and clothes. They had play clothes, food on the table, a warm bed to sleep in at night, shared toys, plenty of books to read and be read to, snacks (crackers and juice) and anything else they needed. Did we need an extra room or an extra room just for play things? Not no but hell no. They were thrilled to death at Christmas or their birthday to get presents becuase they didn't get stuff all year long. Coloring books or paper dolls or jacks or something like that but that was it. They appreciated and loved the toys that Santa brought them on Christmas morning.
Your arrangement is fine. We all pull together to help each other in the family so that we can all have spare time to spend together. That's what love and family is all about...not expensive shoes and designer clothing. Who benefits from the big brands except the BIG BRAND PEOPLE. Certainly not the children.
Keep up the good work you KNOW what family should be. Sacrifice on the parents part too is important. your children should come first then what is left goes to the parents. That's how we did it. That's our our parents did it and we loved them for it and our kids loved us for it and they STILL thank us to this day and tell us they hope they can be half the parents we were. That's nice believe me and we're not looking for credit...it's just that it is nice to know you did the right things most of the time or your children wouldn't want to be like you at all.
God, Country, Family.
I realize you're bitter about your buddy's suspension, and you want to stretch toward a point, but you're looking very foolish in the process.
We've always had liars, cheats, thieves, drunkards, murderers, adulterers, etc. and always will. We just tend to idealize times past.
I think you are exactly right in your observation except for one thing. Society usually still held up an ideal for people to aspire to. These things, on the whole, were not celebrated the way they are today. They were a source of shame. At least that was true as recently as thirty years ago.
Hah. You'd like to think so. But the facts are in. You're in denial.
You've enjoyed pointing the finger at the speck in another's eye. But, obviously, you're not above making racial comments yourself. Your eye isn't speckless. You're a hypocrite.
It's not a racial comment. Most converts to Islam adopt muslim names. If he's going to adopt their positions, perhaps he's converting, and needs to change his name.
You're pathetic.
Uh-huh. If someone here is "pathetic," it seems more likely to be the one continuing in denial with the truth staring him in the face.
Rant on. I'm not climbing down into your gutter to try to explain the difference between what someone can control and what someone cannot. My post is there, everyone can decide.
I'll stand on my reputation, and you can stand on yours.
Surely you know Islam is, to a great extent, a cultural religion. An Arab person is more than likely a Muslim person.
So, you go right ahead and keep trying to justify calling someone "Abdul" at the same time you tell him to "cut back on the stupid pills." Keep telling us there's nothing even the least bit racial about those comments. Because, even if it should appear as if you might have a prejudicial bone in your body, such a preposterous notion can be easily and rationally explained out of existence.
I'll stand on my reputation, and you can stand on yours.
Gladly. Perhaps yours isn't quite what it used to be, if it ever was (or should have been).
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.