Thursday, September 6, 2007

Liberal hypocrisy....or is that being redundant?


Aren't many of the Democrat congressmen who are calling for action to be taken against Larry Craig some of the same ones who, during Clinton's White House sex scandal, said it was none of anyone's business what Bill Clinton did in his private life?

I'm certainly not defending Craig's actions. If he is guilty, I'm all for him facing the consequences. I'm just saying let's make sure we apply the same standards to everyone.

5 comments:

Big Jar said...

Activist! I was wondering what you've been up to over the last few weeks!

First, I think it's really interesting that you and your friends at FOXNews have been very persistent with comparing Larry Craig to Bill Clinton. But in your haste to divert attention away from the Ida-homo, you're missing some important details.

In calling for everyone to receive equal treatment, you seem to have missed the obvious point that the "crimes" are not the same. Clinton wasn't on trial for having an extramarital affair. He was on trial for lying under oath. He and Lewinsky were not caught having sex in a public place, right? So remind me again why these two events deserve your comparison?

I'm glad you're eager to talk about Larry Craig. The problem with Craig (not to mention Ted Haggard, Bob Allen, Mick Foley, and David Vitter--wow, that list is getting really long!) isn't that he solicited an undercover police officer for sex.

The problem with Crag--and Allen--and Foley--and Vitter--and Haggard--is that they have made careers out of hating homosexuals and championing family values. If they want to have gay sex (or in Vitter's case, sex with a prostitute) I think they should go ahead and do that. But, if they're saying one thing and doing another, that's a...what do you people call it?

Oh yeah--a flip-flopper.

The Activist said...

OK, you make a point. Adultery isn't illegal...it's just immoral.

Another difference between Clinton and Craig is this: Craig was reviled by both parties for what he did, while Clinton was exalted by his own party.

When Republicans are accused of wrongdoing, they almost always resign or step down from any leadership position they may have. When it happens to Democrats, they try to turn the attention back to their accusers, rather than admit their wrongdoing. When Republicans are accused, members of their owner party chastise them; when Democrats are accused, they are defended by their own, and often elevated in status.

It sounds like you're saying it's OK to be immoral as long as you don't profess to hold any moral standards.

None of those people you mentioned hate homosexuals--they just don't think the behavior should be legitimized and normalized by law.

By the way, the correct term is hypocrite, not "flip-flopper".

Big Jar said...

Morality is a relative set of standards. Just because you have adopted a certain viewpoint on what constitutes moral behavior does not mean that everyone else agrees with you.

There are things which everyone can objectively agree are immoral--murder or stealing, for instance. There are other things (homosexuality, or promiscuity) which some people find immoral and others do not.

So no, I'm not saying it's OK for people to be immoral and I obviously *DO* hold moral standards. They're just different from yours. I don't think that homosexuality or sex with a prostitute is immoral. You can disagree with that opinion, but it's quite a stretch to say that someone with this opinion holds *NO* moral standards.

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to the news recently (the real news, that is) but Craig is not resigning. On the contrary, he has withdrawn his resignation and is planning on serving out his term. So what you have written isn't true even in the immediate context of what we're discussing, to say nothing of the broad generalization it makes in other cases.

Denying homosexuals civil rights is tantamount to hating them. If I said "I don't hate black people; I just don't think their behavior should be legitimized and normalized by law," that would sound absolutely ludicrous.

The Activist said...

"Morality is a relative set of standards."

You're right--that is the case for many people who have no unchanging moral foundation by which to evaluate the morality of something.

"Just because you have adopted a certain viewpoint on what constitutes moral behavior does not mean that everyone else agrees with you."

That is true also.

"There are things which everyone can objectively agree are immoral--murder or stealing, for instance."

Everyone? I don't think so. I agree that our conscience (given us by God) does tell us those things are wrong, but many people ignore their conscience and so would not agree all those things are wrong.

"So no, I'm not saying it's OK for people to be immoral and I obviously *DO* hold moral standards. They're just different from yours."

So, then how can you say it's not OK for people to be immoral when there is not even an agreed-upon standard of morality?

"I don't think that homosexuality or sex with a prostitute is immoral. You can disagree with that opinion, but it's quite a stretch to say that someone with this opinion holds *NO* moral standards."

OK, then let's just say your moral standards are quite low.

"Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to the news recently (the real news, that is) but Craig is not resigning. On the contrary, he has withdrawn his resignation and is planning on serving out his term. So what you have written isn't true even in the immediate context of what we're discussing, to say nothing of the broad generalization it makes in other cases."

We'll see if he serves out his term. At the time I wrote the original post, Craig was preparing to resign. Also, my generalization IS correct. Almost without except, Republicans step down, while Democrats are elevated, when caught in immoral behavior.

"Denying homosexuals civil rights is tantamount to hating them. If I said "I don't hate black people; I just don't think their behavior should be legitimized and normalized by law," that would sound absolutely ludicrous."

Homosexuals are NOT being denied any civil rights. And comparing their agenda to the civil rights struggle of the blacks is a slap in the face of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and all the others who fought so hard for equality. That is absolutely ludicrous.

Pippin said...

where r u activist?