Here's a flamefest: When did "liberal" become such a dirty word?

[///M-Spec]

I was watching an interview on BBC the other day, and a noted film director mentioned that liberal had become a dirty word.

I see and hear the term neo-con used in the same derogatory way. Usually by people who consider themselves liberals. So I think it goes both ways.

In some parts of the world American is a dirty word. Go figure.


M

 

[Swift]

"She can't even keep her husband happy."

Ever thought maybe Bill's just a cheating dick? If you're not happy, then you get a divorce, you don't resort to infidelity. And from of all people, a Christian.

I agree, Swift's bias against Hilary has really made him say something VERY un-christian.

Wow, ok. This is actually somewhat funny.

Since you know I'm a Christian, then you know I don't believe in divorce. Except in the case of adultery. That's it. You don't get a divorce because you're "not happy" you work it out. You don't go and have an episode with an intern. You work it out. Now, if Hillary and Bill TOGETHER can't keep a marriage together, why on God's green earth would I trust them to be the head of my country and keep the executive branch of the federal government together?

How is that even remotely close to being un-Christian?

As a side note, I also find it funny when people that aren't Christians tell people that are Christians what is and is not very "Christian"

 

[niky]

It sounds nice because only informed people can vote, but in the event that the government begins to lean a certain way, and only those involved with government in some form can vote/work in government, that leaning has the ability to become a trend and a mindset and before long you might as well have a one-party system. At that point you might as well have a dictator and do away with voting at all.

That's why I said it had fascist tendencies. Fascinating idea, though.

I see and hear the term neo-con used in the same derogatory way. Usually by people who consider themselves liberals. So I think it goes both ways.

In some parts of the world American is a dirty word. Go figure.


M

I noted the fact, also... depressing for me, because in my heart, despite being an ex-pat, I'm still American.

 

[Zardoz]

...You don't get a divorce because you're "not happy" you work it out...Now, if Hillary and Bill TOGETHER can't keep a marriage together, why on God's green earth would I trust them to be the head of my country and keep the executive branch of the federal government together?...

Do you actually not see the enormous contradiction in what you said?

Hello? They DID "work it out". They ARE still together. Come on, man, don't let your virulent hatred of them cloud your ability to make sense.

And by the way, the history of the American Presidency can also be viewed as a history of guys cheating on their wives. Tons of them did it.

For example, do you know about Eisenhower and Kay Summersby? Was Eisenhower a bad President?

 

[FoolKiller]

Hello? They DID "work it out". They ARE still together.

Since when was cheating, possibly multiple times, working it out? You can say they worked it out after he screwed the whole thing up, but that was really a deal of patience and understanding, possibly self-serving, on her part. Swift is saying that things went wrong before they were fixed. If anything Hillary looks better for it because she has been held up as this great family woman who wouldn't let her husband's unchecked desires destroy their family. Women's groups ate that up.

However, I agree with you that how someone handles a marriage can't be used to determine what kind of a president you would make. I know coordinating my project at work and dealing with my wife are two completely different things. I understand what my boss at work is saying.

The issue I had with the whole Monica thing was the location. If I got busted doing that at work I would be out the door as quickly as I could put my personal belongings in a box. A board of any business would boot any CEO that created that kind of scandal.

It is amazing how government works. If you say something that isn't politically correct, even unintentionally, they want you out immediately and everyone, including "friends," turn their backs on you. Play around in your office or kill someone while drunk driving and you are made a leader amongst your peers.

 

[Zardoz]

...and dealing with my wife are two completely different things. I understand what my boss at work is saying.

ROFLMAO!

 

[Swift]

Do you actually not see the enormous contradiction in what you said?

Hello? They DID "work it out". They ARE still together. Come on, man, don't let your virulent hatred of them cloud your ability to make sense.

And by the way, the history of the American Presidency can also be viewed as a history of guys cheating on their wives. Tons of them did it.

For example, do you know about Eisenhower and Kay Summersby? Was Eisenhower a bad President?

I wasn't alive when Esenhower was president so I can't say whether he was or wasn't.

It's not a contradiction. Foolkiller spelled it out perfectly.

Here's a real simple way for me to explain it. That man took vows before a person in authority, witnesses and God to be true and faithful to his wife LONG before he took his oath of office. Now, if he can't be trusted with one set of vows, why would I trust him with another? This goes for ANY president.

 

[Danoff]

I wasn't alive when Esenhower was president so I can't say whether he was or wasn't.

It's not a contradiction. Foolkiller spelled it out perfectly.

Here's a real simple way for me to explain it. That man took vows before a person in authority, witnesses and God to be true and faithful to his wife LONG before he took his oath of office. Now, if he can't be trusted with one set of vows, why would I trust him with another? This goes for ANY president.

The bigger issue in my mind is the oath he broke in court - the one saying he should tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. A president that breaks the law, especially one as sacred as telling the truth on the witness stand - one of the fundamental pillars of our justice system - is obviously unfit to serve. He should have been removed from office.

That he perjured himself in his sexual harrasment case indicates to me that he is willing to violate the law as it suits him, and that he was very likely guilty of sexual harassment.

If it was a long time ago, and he was a much different person then... I might have been able to overlook it. That it was so close to his presidency indicates that he he was the same guy and was clearly unfit to have held office.

 

[Plague.Ghost]

Wow, ok. This is actually somewhat funny.

Since you know I'm a Christian, then you know I don't believe in divorce. Except in the case of adultery. That's it. You don't get a divorce because you're "not happy" you work it out. You don't go and have an episode with an intern. You work it out. Now, if Hillary and Bill TOGETHER can't keep a marriage together, why on God's green earth would I trust them to be the head of my country and keep the executive branch of the federal government together?

How is that even remotely close to being un-Christian?

As a side note, I also find it funny when people that aren't Christians tell people that are Christians what is and is not very "Christian"

Well first off, you can't just "work it out" all the time when someone is unhappy, for a large variety of reasons. Heck, you could be unhappy because they were cheating. But what you were infering was that Hilary was at fault for Bill cheating on her, and that you didn't blame him. It's not that funny, because a Christian would obviously know that infidelity is a sin and it would be scareligious to defend it.

Besides that detail, Bill is a human being, as are all presidents, and thus are subject to human error.

 

[Swift]

Well first off, you can't just "work it out" all the time when someone is unhappy, for a large variety of reasons. Heck, you could be unhappy because they were cheating. But what you were infering was that Hilary was at fault for Bill cheating on her, and that you didn't blame him. It's not that funny, because a Christian would obviously know that infidelity is a sin and it would be scareligious to defend it.

Besides that detail, Bill is a human being, as are all presidents, and thus are subject to human error.

First, its sacrilegious.

Second, there is NO excuse for sin. Just say it's human error dosn't fly. My sin is only forgiven by the grace of God.

And if it gets to the point where someone is cheating, then it's obvious things should've been worked out earlier.

I DO blame him very much. As i said he's very stupid. But a marriage is a partnership. So if both people are holding up their end of the deal, why breach the contract?

Where did I defend infidelity again?

 

[Plague.Ghost]

First, its sacrilegious.

I knew religion was spelt as such, and I knew sacrelige was spelt as such, but I decided against my first judgement and went with the former derivative (OR IS IT DERIVITIVE?). I repent.

Second, there is NO excuse for sin. Just say it's human error dosn't fly. My sin is only forgiven by the grace of God.

Well I wasn't defending his actions, but it sounded as though you were, especially with the "She can't even keep her husband happy" comment. But seriously, Presidents are people too, and are capable of being stupid, immoral, LIBERAL, or joke around. But, who is the greater fool- the one leading the charge or the ones following him?

And if it gets to the point where someone is cheating, then it's obvious things should've been worked out earlier.

This don't always just "work out", and it's not as easy to just suddenly come clean about infidelity as one may think/

I DO blame him very much. As i said he's very stupid. But a marriage is a partnership. So if both people are holding up their end of the deal, why breach the contract?

Because infidelity aren't the only grounds for divorce—IN MY BOOK— and if you're not in love, why should you still be married? Marriage is judge a way for people to proclaim their love for each other, and if they don't love each other anymore then there's no point in staying married.

Where did I defend infidelity again?

That's not quite what I was inferring; it sounded strongly that you were justifying his actions because his wife wasn't doing what he wanted.

 

[Swift]

Well I wasn't defending his actions, but it sounded as though you were, especially with the "She can't even keep her husband happy" comment. But seriously, Presidents are people too, and are capable of being stupid, immoral, LIBERAL, or joke around. But, who is the greater fool- the one leading the charge or the ones following him?

in the world of liberalism, only God knows.

This don't always just "work out", and it's not as easy to just suddenly come clean about infidelity as one may think/



Because infidelity aren't the only grounds for divorce—IN MY BOOK— and if you're not in love, why should you still be married? Marriage is judge a way for people to proclaim their love for each other, and if they don't love each other anymore then there's no point in staying married.

First, if you're in love with somebody it doesn't go away. If you in LUST with someone it can go away quite easily. My parents have been together for more then 30 years. They have their disagreements and whatnot. But they can always work it out because there's a foundation of love and understanding.

You second comment about divorce is the reason too many people take marriage so lightly in this country.

That's not quite what I was inferring; it sounded strongly that you were justifying his actions because his wife wasn't doing what he wanted.

Ok, glad we can understand each on that point.

 

[Danoff]

But, who is the greater fool- the one leading the charge or the ones following him?

In the case of Clinton I would have to say the latter.

 

[Plague.Ghost]

First, if you're in love with somebody it doesn't go away. If you in LUST with someone it can go away quite easily.

But people change over the years, situations change, biology changes, everything changes. The person you married 10 years ago may not be the same person you are married to now (Err, metaphorically speaking) and things are just becomming too difficult to live with.

If you're not happy when you come home to see your wife, or husband, if you're not happy when get to spend time together, and/or if you don't find relief when they come to be with you. . .

. . .is that still love?

 

[James2097]

Sounds like a song P_G! Pull out the acoustic guitar and the campfire...

 

[Swift]

But people change over the years, situations change, biology changes, everything changes. The person you married 10 years ago may not be the same person you are married to now (Err, metaphorically speaking) and things are just becomming too difficult to live with.

If you're not happy when you come home to see your wife, or husband, if you're not happy when get to spend time together, and/or if you don't find relief when they come to be with you. . .

. . .is that still love?

Everyone changes over the years, everyone. So to say, "She's not the same person I married 10 years ago!" Is just stupid because you're not the same person she married 10 years ago.

I think it's really amazing how people are so quick to just throw out the wedding vows if things get a little rough. Can you disown your young children just because they aren't doing exactly what you tell them too all the time? Nope, you work on them the best you can to mold them into productive members of society. Why shouldn't there be an equal amount of effort put into a marriage?

I'm engaged right now. And it's not always cake, about 90% of the time it is. But not always, it takes effort, understanding, swalling pride and most of all forgiveness. I will not throw away my marriage just because things got a little rough.

 

[Zardoz]

...and most of all forgiveness.

Why does it bother you so much that Hillary continues to forgive Bill?

 

[Duke]

I will not throw away my marriage just because things got a little rough.

While I agree with this statement, I have to categorically deny your earlier implication that true love never dies. There are real times when real people who actually try to work it out simply fall out of real love with each other. There is no reason that those people should be forced to remain together if it is not productive to do so.

 

[Swift]

While I agree with this statement, I have to categorically deny your earlier implication that true love never dies. There are real times when real people who actually try to work it out simply fall out of real love with each other. There is no reason that those people should be forced to remain together if it is not productive to do so.

And that's where we differ in stance my friend. Where I find marriage to be a binding relationship for the lifetime of the people involved, you find it to be a binding relationship until it is not productive to the people involved. Much like a business contract.

But if you can agree on the big stuff, the small things won't break up a marriage. If you take care of them and don't let them become big things.

Why does it bother you so much that Hillary continues to forgive Bill?

It bothers me that their relationship got to that point(possibly twice) in the first place. It's great that she forgives Bill. But I'm sorry, I'm not about to trust either one of them with my government. Not after all that garbage. If a man can't keep his house in order, how can he(she) run an even bigger house? Especially when there's always talk of morals and values.👎

 

[FoolKiller]

But people change over the years, situations change, biology changes, everything changes. The person you married 10 years ago may not be the same person you are married to now (Err, metaphorically speaking) and things are just becomming too difficult to live with.

But a marriage should be more than just two people living together and sharing financial responsibilities.

The two people should come together to share one life and be as one. If they do this they will change together because many of their experiences will be the same. They will share their lives with each other and live them as one. Your situations should change together and normal biological changes are gradual and not overnight. The one not changing has a chance to adjust gradually.

In the event that one is not holding up their end of the bargain then the other is responsible for bringing it to light, not cheating or filing for divorce without saying a word. I witnessed this with my parents where my mom worked too much and my dad cheated then left. Did my dad says a word to my mother about her working long hours? No. Who's fault is the divorce? Partially both, but mostly his. He avoided a confrontation and then made a concious decision to act in a way to end the marriage. Changes don't end a marriage unless the other person avoids mentioning it and then acts out in defiance of it.

Biological changes that aren't normal and sudden can be worked on. The spouse is responsible to bring up the change and then stand by in a supporting role through doctor visits and treatments. If it is something major such as paralysis anyone who leaves before the injured person has a chance to adapt to their new life never gave it a chance and fled in fear. That is not a good enough excuse and shows you to be a jerk.

My wife and I (who will have been married six months on Sunday) are in this marriage for life. We made sure the vows said, "until death do us part," and not the new version of, "as long as our love shall last," that I hear more frequently. If you need to change your vows like that then you shouldn't get married, end of story.

 

[Zardoz]

...I'm sorry, I'm not about to trust either one of them with my government. Not after all that garbage. If a man can't keep his house in order, how can he(she) run an even bigger house? Especially when there's always talk of morals and values.

This is a uniquely American attitude, you know. Are you aware that our persecution of Clinton over his "indiscretions" made us the laughingstock of the world? Europeans especially could not believe that it even made the papers, much less became the issue we made it.

I'll never vote for Hillary, but not for this reason. What goes on at home has absolutely nothing to do with someone's ability to run a government.

 

[Danoff]

Europeans especially could not believe that it even made the papers, much less became the issue we made it.

That's because they forgot that it was about Clinton perjuring himself while he was under investigation for sexual harassment. Perhaps it would have helped if someone had explained that obstruction of justice is a crime.

 

[Swift]

I'll never vote for Hillary, but not for this reason. What goes on at home has absolutely nothing to do with someone's ability to run a government.

I disagree with that 100%.

 

[FoolKiller]

That's because they forgot that it was about Clinton perjuring himself while he was under investigation for sexual harassment. Perhaps it would have helped if someone had explained that obstruction of justice is a crime.

You realize that every Clinton supporter is blind to this post right? As my father-in-law like to say, "They don't let the facts get in the way of their opinions."

 

[Zardoz]

You realize that every Clinton supporter is blind to this post right? As my father-in-law like to say, "They don't let the facts get in the way of their opinions."

But the fact is that he was acquitted by the Senate. That makes it easier for people to forget the oh-so-sordid details.

That isn't my point, though, which is that Clinton's adolescent behavior with women would barely raise an eyebrow anywhere but here. Pretty much anywhere else, nobody cares what their "leaders" do when they're off-duty.

 

[Danoff]

But the fact is that he was acquitted by the Senate. That makes it easier for people to forget the oh-so-sordid details.

That isn't my point, though, which is that Clinton's adolescent behavior with women would barely raise an eyebrow anywhere but here. Pretty much anywhere else, nobody cares what their "leaders" do when they're off-duty.

They also tolerate sexual harassment. We, on the otherhand, care about that (rightly or not). Clinton lied under oath to avoid being found guilty of breaking the law. That's pretty much a fact - and it lead to his impeachment.

I care more about perjury than sexual harassment, but Clinton is guilty of both.

 

[FoolKiller]

Pretty much anywhere else, nobody cares what their "leaders" do when they're off-duty.

Since when was anything in the Oval Office considered "off-duty?" It it had been the Lincoln Bedroom, the kitchen, the limo, anywhere but the Oval Office I would accept the off-duty thing.

 

[Swift]

Since when was anything in the Oval Office considered "off-duty?" It it had been the Lincoln Bedroom, the kitchen, the limo, anywhere but the Oval Office I would accept the off-duty thing.

Thank you...

They also tolerate sexual harassment. We, on the otherhand, care about that (rightly or not). Clinton lied under oath to avoid being found guilty of breaking the law. That's pretty much a fact - and it lead to his impeachment.

I care more about perjury than sexual harassment, but Clinton is guilty of both.

..And, Thank you

God forbid I would actually care about the moral standards of the leader of the nation. The prase "practice what you preech" comes to mind.