Agreed - for the most part. -- robdogdotcom

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4 ]

Subject: Agreed - for the most part.

Author:
Rob Dog Bastard

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 20:58:17 07/14/04 Wed
In reply to: Uncle Jimmy 's message, "Re: "Let them eat cake"" on 01:51:05 07/14/04 Wed

First off, some of these items aren't even crimes or wrongdoings, they are simply accusations:

29 have been accused of spousal abuse
19 have been accused of writing bad checks
21 are currently defendants in lawsuits

Others of these aren't necessarily bad things at all:

117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit

And some are arguably minor:

14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting

So the list is now pretty short, and still very difficult to verify. I agree with Jimmy though - these are representatives of the people, not paragons of high ethical standards. It isn't that they've made mistakes in life, but how they handle them which should serve as criteria for judgement, dependant on the "mistake" of course. If somebody smoked some weed, did a few lines, whatever at some distant point in the past - who cares? If somebody was picked up for lifting a baseball from the shopping mall when they were in High School - who cares? If somebody faced financial trouble and couldn't manage the bills in their past - even better - it should give them a BETTER perspective on how real people deal with real issues!

When you judge a politician, you have to look at them at face value. Let's take John Kerry picking John Edwards as VP nominee and heaping praise on him. Just a few short months ago, John Kerry was adamant about Edwards' inability to perform the job. He harped on Edwards' record (or lack thereof) in the Senate. He played on Edwards' history as a trial lawyer of questionable motives. He even pulled the age card on Edwards, taking pains to make sure he often pointed out that while he (Kerry) was fighting in Vietnam, Edwards was 'in a diaper.' Now - from the same man - Edwards is the best possible candidate for the job? Give me a break.

If you made mistakes in the past, paid your dues and rectified those mistakes fine. If you are lying now, cheating now, and refusing to own up to your past then we have a problem.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]