On 7/26/2014 11:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 21:48:04 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> On 7/26/2014 3:34 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> That would probably be the best, but then, perhaps people would vote
>>>> for the one candidate who praises God all the time?
>>>
>>> It's a question of making beliefs be private or "none" becoming the
>>> norm.  That's something that's going to take some time over here.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> Yeah. Mostly its one side trying real hard to not offend anyone, while
>> babbling about god and refusing to stop patently insulting crap like the
>> national day of wishful thinking, while the other side spends almost as
>> much time claiming that everyone else isn't going to hell, while trying
>> to claim that, no, in fact **they** pray more, or are more godly, etc.,
>> than the other guy running, including their own party members, when
>> running against them.
>
> What we need to do, I think, is instill the idea that actions speak
> louder than words in the youth.
>
That is what lawyers, smear campaigns, public image consultants and 
keeping your own life as private as possible, while digging up someone 
else's as much as possible, are for, right?

> Someone who's all in favor of "family values" but is actually a serial
> cheating scumbag can be judged based on what they do, not what they say
> they believe.
>
Snort.. Well, first of, I don't buy, myself, into the BS idea that the 
nuclear family is anything but a fiction, that people don't cheat a lot, 
and just fail to get caught, that relationships are some magic thing 
that last forever, or a long list of other things that would be required 
for the term "family values" to even mean a damn thing in the first 
place. Whether or not someone cheats on their wife, even serially 
doesn't say a damn thing about anything else they do. I would, 
personally vote for a bloody swinger, polyamorist, etc., if their ideas 
where not complete bullshit. The problem is, in a nutshell, that "family 
values" are nothing more, in reality than the low hanging fruit. They 
are the means by which some ass can convince the gullible, who think 
that having the pretense of holding such values, somehow extend those 
values into the rest of everything else they do, and can therefor be 
"trusted". There are people that I know would never break those rules, 
but whom I wouldn't elect to be bloody dog catcher, because their self 
righteous tendencies, which let them adhere to such tendencies in the 
first place, make them unfit to make dynamic, variable, spur of the 
moment, decisions, based on the information available, instead of 
defaulting back to some stupid dogmatic solution, which failed the last 
5,000 times, but is "acceptable, and traditional, and adheres to their 
personal faith/ideals about how the world really functions."

Yeah, they should be judged by what they do, depending on whether or not 
what ever they did has jack shit to do with what ever the problem really 
is. The real problem isn't whether or not they are a cheating scumbag - 
its whether or not they hide it, them lie about it, while claiming to 
believe in the fiction of "sanctity of marriage". Because, if they are 
willing to do that, then they will cheat at other things, hide the fact 
they are doing it, and then lie their asses off, when caught, just like 
with their sex lives.

Like I said - I have no problem, at all, with an honest swinger (and to 
be factual, there are many cases where that honesty has allowed 
marriages to survive, where hiding it from the spouse **always** fails 
to work), than someone that claims their whole entire existence is based 
on **never ever** doing such things, and gets caught doing it anyway.

It would be really refreshing to deal with adults, instead of people 
that instantly become petulant 6 year olds, the moment someone is caught 
playing with someone else's toy. But, instead, what we get is a bunch of 
six year olds, with a range of views from, "I am taking my toys and 
leaving!", to, "It wasn't me, someone else did it!", to ,"Mine, mine, 
mine!", to, "I am going to tell on you!". Even when it gets as far as a 
divorce, its more 6 year old behavior - what matters isn't the kids, and 
what its doing to them, its who gets to keep the toys, and whether or 
not that is sufficient a bargaining chip to let the other one keep the 
kids instead. Where the F are the adults in any of it?

There certainly is never one single scrap of honestly, or mutual respect 
involved, or the other person in the relationship would be the first one 
to find out, not the press, and the outcome would be based on a sane 
discussion, not a hissy fit.

But, yeah, this is par for the course. And, like I said, its the "low 
hanging fruit", which is why its the #1 thing all the smear tactic 
people look for. Too much of a public is much more concerned, or can be 
made to be concerned (like with Clinton) with whether or not something 
got kept in someone's pants, or who they showed it to, if it wasn't, 
than whether or not they actually ***did*** anything with their time in 
office. Its like watching kids on a playground pick who they will 
associate with, and seeing some poor kid get kicked to the side, because 
the school's "in crowd" got there first and declared, "She has 
cooties!", causing most of the whole class to shun them.

Again, where the hell are the adults in the room? "Family Values" is a 
lie right from the start, almost nothing they say when talking about it 
isn't against women's health, or women's rights, or gays, or life 
choices they don't like, or anything else they can lump into the thing. 
Its all about what people shouldn't be, and jack to do, save by a very 
convoluted and paranoid course, with anything involved the well being of 
families. But, when its used as a weapon against and opponent, over some 
"choice" they have made... it always becomes a) school yard bullshit, 
and b) a sort of glaring hypocrisy. But, since the whole concept is a 
nest of delusions in the first place, the second effect is hardly a 
surprise.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message