Do you think John Edwards will make a comeback in politics once his love child scandal settles down?

Obamanism

He is a very great speaker. I think he is even better than Obama. He has the looks of a Kennedy, very charming and good looking. His downfall was an affair and having a child with a girlfriend. Didn't Clinton have faults, too? Sometimes lies are good to protect the image and prestige and office of the senate and/or possible vice president or even president candidate. He did lie, but everyone has faults. You can't expect everyone in office to be perfect. Your thoughts?

Draco_2k

Can we start caring less about what politicians do in their free time and care more about what they're doing on their job?

lolfighter

As a politician, you are not entitled to lie. You are entitled to a private life, and you are entitled to say "mind your own business" about things that people don't need to know. But despite the frequency with which politicians lie, this is not a privilege they have. Every time politicians lie, they show themselves unworthy of their office and the power vested in them.
Clinton's big mistake was lying. He should have told the public and the media to get their noses out of what was a matter between him, his wife and Lewinsky. It was their business, not the public's. But he lied about it, and THAT nearly cost him his office.

Depot

His problem is he doesn't have Lassie. Or a reasonable facsimile.

locallyunscene

Also, for some reason, Americans don't like people that are openly terrible people. They can be obviously terrible people, like ###### Cheney, but as long as they have a stable home life people think, "well their significant other loves them so they can't be all terrible." Whereas if a politician loses that simple fallback, people tend to assume they have no redeeming qualities.

That's my theory anyway. It's probably wrong.

Draco_2k

<!--quoteo(post=1750061:date=Feb 1 2010, 06:15 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Feb 1 2010, 06:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750061"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->###### Cheney<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol

<!--quoteo(post=1750061:date=Feb 1 2010, 06:15 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Feb 1 2010, 06:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750061"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's my theory anyway. It's probably wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It would make perfect sense, but it doesn't account for a couple basic facts: a)Some/Most politicians don't care because they can't be impeached anyway; b)Publicity is media-driven, which throws any objectivity out of the window.

Chris0132

Who's John Edwards?

zimzum

wasn't he that psychic on the SciFi channel a handful of years ago?

TGunz81

Hell NO. Only a fool would trust that lying $&%$ to lead anything in office. If a man, can't be a man in HIS everyday life... then why should I expect him to act like a man in MY life?

Chris0132

Surely he is a man simply by virtue of anatomy and genetics?

I don't get what 'man' means when people use it in a context outside that, it seems to mean exactly the same thing as 'good' which is entirely subjective for everyone.

That_Annoying_Kid

<!--quoteo(post=1750010:date=Jan 31 2010, 01:18 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jan 31 2010, 01:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750010"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As a politician, you are not entitled to lie. You are entitled to a private life, and you are entitled to say "mind your own business" about things that people don't need to know. But despite the frequency with which politicians lie, this is not a privilege they have. Every time politicians lie, they show themselves unworthy of their office and the power vested in them.
Clinton's big mistake was lying. He should have told the public and the media to get their noses out of what was a matter between him, his wife and Lewinsky. It was their business, not the public's. But he lied about it, and THAT nearly cost him his office.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Clinton didn't lie, the judge didn't define oral sex as sexual relations

that quote is just taken out of context

lolfighter

Clinton (after having time to review the legal definition of "sexual relation" used in this case) <i>thought</i> that it did not include oral sex, however as far as I know it did in fact do so.

snooggums

<!--quoteo(post=1750061:date=Jan 31 2010, 09:15 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Jan 31 2010, 09:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750061"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, for some reason, Americans don't like people that are openly terrible people. They can be obviously terrible people, like ###### Cheney, but as long as they have a stable home life people think, "well their significant other loves them so they can't be all terrible." Whereas if a politician loses that simple fallback, people tend to assume they have no redeeming qualities.

That's my theory anyway. It's probably wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I think your theory is sound. It also explains why people treat a politician's profession of religious affiliation as gospel despite their complete contradiction to their religion's teachings in their actual actions, such as Republican Christians who are hellbent against welfare.

Faskalia

<!--quoteo(post=1753167:date=Feb 14 2010, 11:48 PM:name=That_Annoying_Kid)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (That_Annoying_Kid @ Feb 14 2010, 11:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753167"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Clinton didn't lie, the judge didn't define oral sex as sexual relations

that quote is just taken out of context<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

If sticking your penis inside a persons orfice is not a sexual relation, than I don't know what is...

Heck, when you touch someone with your penis anywhere it is commonly descibed as sexual harassment. So it makes sense, that oral sex falls under the sexual relation category.

And it did not really matter, what the judge defined oral sex as. If 95% of a society deem oral sex to be a sexual relation, that he simply lied to just 95% and not 100%.

lolfighter

In a court, what matters is the legal definition, not what 95% of society says. In this case, however, the legal definition included oral sex. So there.

That_Annoying_Kid

well then

Clinton lied and nobody died


But I'm still pretty sure this particular judge views sexual relations as vaginal intercourse only

lolfighter

Here's an explanation of the problem: <a href="http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonjonesperjury.html" target="_blank">http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonjonesperjury.html</a>

Apparently, the issue was with the Jones' lawyer team's definition of "sexual relations." The initial definition was too broad, and the subsequently edited definition too narrow.