Originally posted by peachgirl
You know Kendra, what you said is still posted and it's really easy to go back and prove what you claim you said and what you really said aren't the same at all.
What you said was this:
That's hardly the same as your new and improved version.
It's close enough for me. However, please be sure to take the one you find more offensive to be the one I mean.
I think the idea that being "discreet" while committing adultery somehow makes it less offensive, is hypocritical. That's a comment on the point of view, not the person.
You may think whatever you'd like. My point was yes, in my opinion Clinton is and was morally corrupt for actually committing adultery over and over again.
In addition to this, however, he did it and attempted to do it in such a way that it was inevitable that the public would find out. If you really need me to elaborate--I'm pretty certain the meaning of my post was clear--I personally think adultery is morally wrong. However, some people do it whether they believe it to be morally wrong (in which case they're hypocrites) or not morally wrong. Some people do it, I suppose, with the approval of their spouse.
However, it's my opinion one shouldn't commit any infidelities. I do think it would make sense if those that don't agree with me, especially if they are the President, should at least attempt to be somewhat discreet--so that it remains a private matter and so that he doesn't look quite like the pig many now think he is.
This doesn't change his character, Peachgirl. Being discreet doesn't lessen the act--not by any means. Discreet or not, the man lacks moral fiber. Being discreet means he had at least the sense to understand that much of the public--if they discovered his adulterous pattern-- might find him to be repugnant. One might think that he would have considered that result if he cared about what much of the public might think.
Your problem is you can't seem to take anyone disagreeing with what you say and when they do, you take it as a personal insult and think it's perfectly fine to start attacking them with your snide remarks.
Thank you for telling me what my problem is. My problem, however, isn't someone disagreeing with me, it's implying hypocrisy where there is none and taking some of my statements out of context. You have done both of these things before. My statement about having to re-explain something to you--however I said it--is really a minor point compared to you calling my posts "pure drivel". You then pretend you are disagreeing with what I am saying, and not personally attacking. Let me be clear: In my opinion, you are dishonest and conniving. Calling my posts "pure drivel" is an insult to my character, although you claim it to be something else. Since many of these political posts get very serious and heated, these posts and thoughts are somewhat representative of character. Your posts, I believe, are representative of your character (which, btw, leads me to believe your true character to be unpleasant, unkind and dishonest). I believe you know this to be true, yet you continue to feign both innocence and victimhood status.
When you do that to me, I'm going to respond in kind. Btw, how many times are you going to leave before you actually do?
As history has shown you continue to quote comments out of context and make statements about them implying hypocrisy on my part, I will most likely continue to call you on it. When you continue to insult me--by calling my post
s "pure drivel" while claiming you are just disagreeing with my post, I will most likely continue to call you on that, too.
