I, like many others, can never get enough Weiner

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Anthony Weiner is just another garden-variety scumbag with absolutely no personal integrity.

The question I would like to ask is whether we should really care about this?  That is, given the choice, would we rather have people in government who are garden-variety scumbags -- but who advocate for policies that we believe optimally serve the interests of the citizenry -- or people who have high moral character, but are incompetent at governing and/or are completely wrong-headed when it comes to public policy?

My own sense is that I'd rather have someone skim half a million from the public coffers and make decisions that save us billions than someone who is squeaky clean -- but whose incompetence undermines justice and prudence.
 

Comments

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

"Abraham Lincoln shared his bed with a man"

That doesn't imply what some people want it to infer. It was common practice for people traveling together in a era without a motel 6 on every corner.
But hey why let facts get in the way of a salacious story?

[deborahkla.livejournal.com]

It's salacious only because the Republicans have made it so, and that's why it's considered a skeleton in his closet.

Whether or not he shared his bed with a man doesn't concern me, although frankly, I hope he did, and if he did, I hope he found as much comfort as convenience in doing so. He had a difficult life, and it would be nice to think that he had a lover when his wife was often so ill.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Did you not comprehend what I wrote?
Sharing a bed with a man did not mean a homosexual relationship. It was common practice for traveling companions (iirc the gentleman in question was his law partner) to sleep in the one available bed.
The homosexual rumor was started a few years ago by a group with an agenda. You obviously have a college education.

[deborahkla.livejournal.com]

Did you not comprehend what I wrote? Sharing a bed with a man did not mean a homosexual relationship. It was common practice for traveling companions (iirc the gentleman in question was his law partner) to sleep in the one available bed.
I understoood entirely what you wrote. I know two men sharing a bed was a common practice in the 19th century among traveling companions. However, I personally like to think that man might also have been Lincoln's lover. Considering what a difficult life he had, it would be nice to think that he may have found some comfort in a lover.

The homosexual rumor was started a few years ago by a group with an agenda.
And that rumour was obviously aimed towards people who consider homosexuality a sin or abnormal, and who would consider this a skeleton in his closet. It appears that this group includes you, since you're offended by the very notion that the man in question might also have been Lincoln's lover. I, however, unlike you, do not consider it offensive if the man also happened to be his lover, because I'm not offended by the possibility of Lincoln being a bisexual.

You obviously have a college education.
I do indeed, which may be why I'm more accepting of the possibility of Lincoln being bisexual than you, and thus not offended by it. If he was bisexual, I also wouldn't consider it a skeleton in his closet, although others less accepting would.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

However, I personally like to think that man might also have been Lincoln's lover.

Classic unreason.

[deborahkla.livejournal.com]

I see you like to troll just to cause trouble.

I never claimed it to be reason, as you damn well know. I said what I personally think. There's nothing in the site rules that said I can't do so.

There are, however, rules against trolling.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

I suggest that you guys end this conversation right here. Obviously it's going nowhere.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

I was not planning any further replies, thanks. :)

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Drive-by snark, then?

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

*sigh*

" I personally like to think that man might also have been Lincoln's lover."

What you like to think and facts are not necessarily the same thing.

" since you're offended by the very notion that the man in question might also have been Lincoln's lover."

No where did I imply I was offended by whether or not he had a male lover. I am offended when people accept heresay as fact in order to forward an agenda.

"since you're offended by the very notion that the man in question might also have been Lincoln's lover"... "I, however, unlike you," Assumption made only by infering something not implied.

Please do a bit of research on the counter arguments to Tripps book before coming off all dogmatic. This is even worse than your assurtion that the only men entitled to be called founding fathers' are the ones who actually were involved in the writing of the Constitution, why? because some guy asserted it in a paper.

I have tried to keep this a reasonable discussion even though you have all but acussed me of being a homophobe or a bigot, I give you the benefit of the doubt. Hopefully I will have learned my lesson this time.

[deborahkla.livejournal.com]

My apologies for making an incorrect assumption based on this statement you made, which I thought implied that you believed that homosexuality was wrong, particularly since you were so vehement about Lincoln not being homosexual:

The homosexual rumor was started a few years ago by a group with an agenda.

Again, my apologies. I made a flippant remark about what some people would consider President Lincoln's "skeleton." It's obviously been taken entirely the wrong way.

But hey why let facts get in the way of a salacious story?
This is where you made an assumption about me simply for bringing up the subject. I know full well that men who traveled together often shared the same bed in the 19th century and even into the early 20th century For this reason I believe it's silly for people to consider this a "skeleton" in his closet, and I, personally, would have liked him to have the comfort of a lover. This is what I originally stated, and that was when you questioned if I'd read what you wrote, in a rather hostile manner, I might add. Hence my reaction. Again, my apologies. In the past you've declared yourself a member of the religious right, so I had no idea that you did not support their staunch stand against civil rights for homosexuals.

As far as the founding fathers are concerned, they are generally considered to be everyone who signed the constitution, or in some way participated in the founding of America. However,it's also acknowledged that the key founding fathers are considered the men who actually wrote the constitution. The men who wrote the constitution are the ones who actually created the foundation for the USA, and they were NOT religious people. The constituion is the foundation of the country, not the founding fathers themselves, and this is why the there is such a strong declaration against creating a state religion. This is an historical fact, not just an assertion made by someone in a paper:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States

http://www.foundingfathers.info/

http://colonialhall.com/biography.php

http://www.constitutionday.com/constitution-founding-fathers.html

This last link I've included only because it demonstrates how far some members of the religious right will go in attempting to violate the constitution by declaring the united states as a christian country:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/4736/david_barton%3A_creationist_founding_fathers_settled_debate_over_evolution/

Again, my apologies for the assumption.