Future Man wrote:Sex is fun, but if you are suggesting that that's the whole ball of wax, well, that's a dim, immature view of the enormity of it, which sadly is more and more common. Anyway, during the time that Bill Clinton was the most powerful man in the world, his illict behavior with a young intern--which did not even bear enough of the suggestion of an actual relationship to 'dignify' it with label of an 'affair'--was a contributing factor in the growth of a disturbing trend of relationship-free premarital sex among young people, to the point that not even a dinner or two is a necessary predicate. You see, authority figures, be they parents or yes, even Presidents (like Honest Abe for instance), are role models for children. If one's parent openly uses illegal drugs in the home, what does the average child come to think about their usage? So you had a whole generation of young people who came of age learning that their President held sex in such low regard that the decision to engage in it or not was of no more import than any other 'fun' activity, and no attempt at a relationship is really even required. Now hear me when I say that Clinton's escapades were not the only factor, and yes societal mores have been in a general decline since the 1960s, but the timing is too close not to acknowledge them as an important ingredient in the rise of this particular trend.
Dude, 90% of my total sleazoid screwing around occurred under Reagan and Bush I, so my whore behavior was their fault then? Ask anybody who came of age in the 90's if they decided it was OK to screw around because of Clinton, and they'll laugh at you. 90% of the kids barely even knew who the President was, let alone let his behavior influence theirs.
However, we better get this stuff under control, because anybody who was in Foley's district now thinks it's OK to lure teenage boys into taking naked pictures of themselves, and anyone in Sanford's area now thinks it's OK to get a South American ho, and the same goes for the poor people of Nevada, who were all obviously of the purest sort, but now are corrupted by Ensign's affair, and how about 90% of the state of Idaho decided that soliciting for gay sex under bathroom stalls is OK because of Craig?
Oh. That's right. Those don't matter because they're Republicans. Yep, hypocrisy, from Future Man? Who would have ever believed it?
The point, which you studiously avoid, as always, is the douchebag lying manwhore known as Sanford, who screamed just about the loudest about Clinton's affair, now seems to think that his virtually identical behavior isn't cause enough for him to step down, despite his lobbying Clinton to. This is hypocrisy. Can you comment on that? Is it, or is it not hypocrisy? Please deal with this, without blaming the liberal media, Bill Clinton, Obama, or any of the other things you try to blame when one of your Republican Holier Than Thou Asswipes winds up being caught with his pants down.
