Close Topic Options

Moral Political Hypocrisy

I was torn whether to put this in the political area or the religion section. Being that I want to focus specifically on morality in politics and the effect morality has had on politics, so I decide its best place was in the political section. While the subject that brought this up is specifically related to Mark Foley, I do not want to spend to much time discussing him in general, but rather the response by each party and the hypocrisy that has arisen.

Lets first start by stating an obvious fact. To be a fundamentalist christian means to vote republican only. If you want to challenge that claim, then go to the Christian Coalition website and find one democrat listed they want you to vote for, or one bill brought up by democrats that they have an action alert about. They are very active politically and encourage churches to vote republican. I myself have witnessed first hand that nearly every single person who votes republican does so on moral issues. Whether anyone believes it or not, in this country, to vote moral is to vote republican to most people.

In recent times, we have seen numerous republicans go down in disgrace:
1. Mark Foley - Online sexual chat with sixteen year old boy.
2. Tom Delay (majority leader), Bob Ney, and Randy Cunninghamshown to be involved in the K Street organized bribary scandal.
3. Jack Abramoffs contacts with the Bush White House in recent court preceedings.
4. Bush and friends go to war with Iraq citing known and well documented WMD's, which have yet to be found.

Thats five key republicans in the last year to be invovled in extremely immoral activities.

Lets remember that we are less than ten years from the point when Bill Clinton was impeached due to a trial regarding his sexual immorality with Monica Lewsinky in the White House. Bush's first campaign slogan was to restore integrity to the white house. Has that been done?

Whats worse is the comments from the republicans regarding Clinton back then, like Mark Foley, verses what republicans are saying about Foley now.

Throw it all away? His trial was regarding his affair with a woman, something many presidents have done before him. Yet he was the only one to get but on trial for it.

Republicans, instead of placing blame on themselves for knowing about this two years ago, a year before the Democrats and the Media, are blaming this on librals instead of where the blame belongs!

Denny Hastert claims the revelations are a Democratic dirty trick.

Rush Limbaugh says liberals are the real hypocrites. "In their hearts and minds and their crotches, they don't have any problem with what Foley did, they-ve defended it over the years." This seems ungrateful, given how many liberals wrote compassionately about Rush's addiction to illegally obtained Oxycontin, despite Rush himself having urged draconian punishments for drug addicts.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council blames "pro-homosexual political correctness"

Matt Drudge indicts teh teenage "beast" themselves: "The kids are egging the Congressmen on!"

Tony Snow refers to his indiscretion as a "naughty email".

Republicans, the same republicans that plastered Clinton to the wall for getting oral sex from Monica Lewinsky, have waffled on their own mans homosexual, young boy, tendency, and in some cases, blamed the kid himself! In fact, they blame anyone but the person responsible!

This is clear hypocrisy from the party that is supposed to be upholding family values and our supposed "christian heritage". What I see is that they are moral when it is convenient, but don't really think morality is that important when it comes to money, their reputations, or forwarding their own political careers! It will be a shame if christians and "religious right" people lose their mind this next election and vote for a single republican based on what has happened. Republicans have show the world that they are the less moral of our degenerate parties, and the lesser of the truthful! Moral Majority indeed!

Hypocrisy Political Moral

While I'm not at all politically savvy, I would like to respond briefly by saying that you are being a little one-sided in your arguments against republicans.

I disagree, regardless of what the Christian Coalition website recommends. To agree with this statement would be like saying that republicans are the only moral people. I don't believe that "most people" feel this way. But to take your point, when a "moral fundamentalist Christian" votes republican, they are voting for the issues or the platform of that republican, and so shouldn't be blamed for the dirt that they are unaware of. The mistake that is being made is in the defending of the politician, after he is found out. But this isn't exclusive to republicans. When Clinton was President, the exact same thing was happening in reverse. While I agree that Mark Foley was more wrong, that doesn't make Clinton right. Neither does the fact that some other Presidents have gotten away with something he didn't.

Not vote for a single republican based on what has happened? That is party politics, only in reverse but just as dumb in my opinion. My vote will be based on the individual politician, regardless of the party they belong to.

Moral Political Hypocrisy History & Civil Business Politics

Well, that isn't obvious to me, at all. What is obvious is that I would challenge YOU to find a single Democratic candidate, or a single Democratic sponsored bill, that even PARTIALLY agrees with fundamentalist Christian ideals. When you can show such a thing, perhaps you might have success convincing fundamentalist Christians that there is something worth considering in the Democratic party.

Really?

Let's look at that a little closer.

Mark Foley. Certainly was involved in immoral conduct. We have talked a bit about this in a separate topic. However, there are TONS of immoral conduct concerning this case, on both sides of the aisle, including the fact that a whole bunch of Democrats KNEW about this, a long time ago, and did nothing about it. As did some Republicans. So, why did the press (who knew about it for at least a year) wait until just before the election?

Yes, certain Republicans, along with certain Democrats, and certain journalists, all acted immorally.

Another fact in this matter is, that although Mr. Foley was, and is wrong in his actions, he tried to do a lot of good while in office. I sincerely wish that he had done more good, and a lot less bad, but we got what we got.

Tom Delay, et. al.: So. There is still a lot of discussion about what is and isn't fact in this case. Most of the information available is questionable, and is couched in extremely political terms.

Jack Abramoff: More and more information is coming out about his similar corrupt ties with Democrats. Hmmm. Maybe this isn't a good one for a condemnation of Republican morals. Especially since people like Harry Reid (a leading Democrat, and I am ashamed to say, a Mormon) have now been tied to Abramoff and his activities. Of course, it wasn't directly, it was to some of Abramoff's organizations.

Bush, and the Iraq War: Biases, and very controversial things brought up there, since ALL of the intelligence agencies in the industrialized world claimed the Iraq had WMDs, and since we HAVE found chemical WMDs in Iraq. Take the discussion to the proper place. It doesn't belong here, since what you are saying is an immoral action, while certainly one in YOUR opinion, isn't in a lot of other people's opinions. Including the hundreds of thousands of Assyrian Christians or Kurds who had been praying for the US to come in and overthrow Hussein and his ilk.

Um, WHO is the hypocrite here? Please provide documentation for Mr. Limbaugh urging draconian punishments for drug addicts, especially those who became addicted to prescription drugs due to horrible pain. I have listened to Mr. Limbaugh for a long time (about 15 years) and don't EVER remember him urging punishments upon drug addicts - only on their enablers. Yes, he mocks such things as needle exchange programs, because he thinks that government involvement in such things is counterproductive.

I certainly don't hold Mr. Limbaugh up as a paragon of moral virtue. But I think you are barking up a VERY wrong tree here. His statement about hypocrisy certainly bears great thought, as the Democratic Party is the home of the Gay and Lesbian activists, including the NAMBLA, which urges that laws be passed making what Mark Foley did completely legal and acceptable!

By the way, last I heard, there is still a good question about whether or not Mr. Foley even committed a crime. He was wrong and immoral, but as far as I know, he is not a criminal. So, which party supports the "immoral" stuff, and which doesn't?

Yes, there are people who are excusing Mr. Foley. But an awful lot of them are simply pointing out that the screaming is coming from people who excuse and support MUCH worse behavior. For example, the people who are screaming - did NOT want President Clinton impeached for lying under oath. You can claim all you want that it was about sex, but he lied under oath, which is a federal crime, and he got away with it.

By the way, who was the last Republican President who is KNOWN to have hosted women, sexually, in the Oval Office? George W. Bush? George H. W. Bush? Ronald Reagan? Gerald Ford? Richard Nixon? Dwight D. Eisenhower? No?

Have any of those men above EVER been accused of committing adultery, especially while in the office of President? How about Democratic Presidents, in the same time period. Let's see.

William Jefferson Clinton? Yep.
James Earl Carter? Not that I know of. He seemed, and seems, to be a very loving, faithful husband. Just (IMO) a horrible, stupid President.
Lyndon Johnson? Not that I know of.
John F. Kennedy? LOLOLOLOLOLOL ROFLMAO!

What was it then, if not a "naughty email"?

You know that that whole statement is wrong. Clinton was "plastered to the wall" for lying under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, thus obstructing justice for someone else, and for being indiscreet about it all. He is known to have used his position of power to "seduce" several women, and is accused of rape in at least one case. That is called "sexual harassment" and is a major "cause" of the Democratic party, but they gave him a complete pass on it. THAT is what most of the Republicans hated, since those very same forces and organizations claimed "sexual harassment" as a reason to deny Clarence Thomas his place on the Supreme Court.

There certainly is enough "moral hypocrisy" evident in the Republican Party. But there is AT LEAST as much evident in the Democratic Party. So, why even bring it up, unless you are ready and willing to discuss all of it present in the Democratic Party, beginning with John F. Kerry, and working backwards?

Hypocrisy Political Moral

Maybe not a President directly but yes their people around them. May be not women, but what is worst... children. Did you ever heard about Johhny Gosh's case? (we have a thread in this forum under heinous crimes). There was a network of politicians who flew children to Washington D.C. for sex orgies and Johnny is just one of the many victims.
This is the so called "Call boy's scandal" that accused Reagan and Bush (father) administration officials in engaging in horrible and disgusting acts with male prostitutes (also underage) in the White House.

What I am trying to say with this is simply, Republicans are not saints either or have higher "morals" than the Democrats. They are all equally disgusting in such behaviors.

Edited: LDS_forever on 29th Oct, 2006 - 8:52pm

Hypocrisy Political Moral

That is EXACTLY what I said all the way through my post. I was pointing out that to try to make either party sound like they are more filled with moral hypocrisy is hypocritical in itself.

Until a Democrat shows up who even slightly represents my political point of view, I will probably continue to vote for Republicans. If I was living in Connecticut right now, I know that I would be voting for Joe Lieberman, although I consider HIM to be a moral hypocrite, for compromising his moral stance for the 2000 elections. At least he shows more moral courage then either or his opponents, and he DOES recognize the situation that we are currently in as far as Iraq goes.