Relax and have a few beers at the t*tty bar!

We've lowered our standards for moral behavior, we tend to forgive to much. I could care less if someone serving in congress happens to be gay, or if some senator's cheating on their spouse, but the notion that elected officials can do what ever they want because it's their personal life is simply bullshit. Conservatives and Liberals look at morality differently. Conservatives, whether it's interpreting the Constitution or the bible, interpret "literally". Liberals view the Bible as a bunch of interesting stories. The Constitution is a living document to Liberals, like the bible, they twist it to mean whatever they want it to say, therefore there is no clear right or wrong, just varying shades of gray. This country is going down the morel shitter, and really...who can deny that.

Thanks FranksWildYears for proving my point! :)

****UPDATE*******

Just to prove my point about reaction (as I mentioned, Magellan), this is what the Democrats had to say today~

Democrats privately floated another option, telling The Associated Press that Spitzer was considering what was almost unthinkable immediately after Monday's bombshell apology: hanging on. "If the public is fine, he'll stay," said a Democrat who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

Morals are an important part of our Society ~ if we didn't have them, it would be utter chaos. I don't believe, at this point, in morals and values within the Democratic party. True that cheating, lying and stealing are not attributes directly linked to Democrats, but most are. Look at the sex scandles, esp. today ~ Eliot Spitzer cries in front of the public for being caught in a prostitution deal that is now a Federal case because the woman traversed state lines and he says, "I have failed to live up to the expectations I have for myself". What? What about not standing in morals for the people who have elected you? Again, before someone nastily brings out the Republican party ~ more often than not, if a Republican is involved in a sex scandel, they immediately resign. Democrats jut out their chin crying how unfair that they are being persecuted or how it's no ones' business how they live ~ sorry my friends, it is. Where are you getting the money to pay those prostitutes? Could it be from your salary which is paid for by your constituents? If you are going into PUBLIC office, you should be held accountable for your actions. The Democrats have no problem censoring Republicans, yet won't do it to one of their own. Bottom line, from here on out, morals are only going downhill (politically speaking).

("KID, HAVE YOU REHABILITATED YOURSELF?")

I went over to the sargent, said, "Sargent, you got a lot a damn gall to
ask me if I've rehabilitated myself, I mean, I mean, I mean that just, I'm
sittin' here on the bench, I mean I'm sittin here on the Group W bench
'cause you want to know if I'm moral enough join the army, burn women,
kids, houses and villages after bein' a litterbug." He looked at me and
said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send you fingerprints
off to Washington."

And friends, somewhere in Washington enshrined in some little folder, is a
study in black and white of my fingerprints. And the only reason I'm
singing you this song now is cause you may know somebody in a similar
situation, or you may be in a similar situation, and if you're in a
situation like that there's only one thing you can do and that's walk into
the shrink wherever you are ,just walk in say "Shrink, You can get
anything you want, at Alice's restaurant.". And walk out. You know, if
one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and
they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony,
they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them.
And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in
singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an
organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said
fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and
walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.

And that's what it is , the Alice's Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement, and
all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it come's around on the
guitar.

- Alice's Restaurant
By Arlo Guthrie

We need to return to the values of the 1950 if we are to be a strong country again.

Morals and values count for a lot in society at large. And I'm not talking about debates concerning homosexuality or abortion here. What I'm talking about fundamentally is character, honesty, and even competence and legitimate accomplishment. In today's society, we tend to focus more on the frivolous and the irrelevant. Much of that can be attributed to the rise of new mediums of receiving information, like TV. Just to take an example from the world of politics: The last President who had truly great accomplishments on his resume was Dwight D. Eisenhower. Since Kennedy, Presidential candidates (and politicians in general) have been marketed like toothpaste or cars. It's all about IMAGE and not SUBSTANCE. There has been a fundamental sea change in our culture; everything now is about celebrity and entertainment, much to the detriment of real debate about the issues at hand. We rarely hear about Hillary's accomplishments or her ideas about executive administration. Instead we hear about how cold she is. Just putting a flashlight on her record will show that she should not be President. Focusing in on the frivolous takes us away from that important discussion.

Certainly there is no such thing as a flawless politician. Indeed, we should never expect that out of human beings. But there is such a thing as character, and that's something we don't look at that much anymore when we're deciding who our leaders should be. Character entails things like honesty, loyalty, courage and thrift. Unfortunately today it is much more difficult to discern between what is concerned genuine accomplishment and image. If the criterion we're using to choose our leaders is "who would we like to have a beer with", then we're in trouble. I think it is quite telling that the Democratic field today is headed up by three candidates who basically are all image and no substance. What has Hillary and Edwards done that will suggest they will be even mediocre Presidents? And Obama has absolutely no accomplishments to speak of. Folks, we're living in tough times and we need bold, experienced leaders at the helm, not lightweights who are still learning on the job. That is where morals and values are important.

This is when I am glad that we have a president like George Bush.

By the very nature of the job---Politition--morals would hamper you from getting the job. Its almost like winning on Survivor---by hook or by crook you have to fight your way to the top, then convince all the people to give you a million dollars. A Politition wants that nice paying power laden postion, and must convince us to vote them in, so I imagine a person would say or do almost anything to get that vote.

With the exception of Bernie Sanders, American politicians universally lack any sort of moral fibre or ethical backbone.

Politics in America are bereft of morals. The ultimate oxymoron: moral politician. They'd just as much as steal your watch as simply shake your hand. Very few politicians I trust, so few I can count them on one hand. And one of those is dead already (God bless Ronald Reagan [and I'm a Democrat]).

Who follows these? Nobody, if you think about it. Quit shaking your fingers, everyone. All the parties are a bunch of deceitful idiots, its just a question of what flavor of idiot you prefer!

American Food, when you say "I follow these," I believe you. Now, time for you to be "honest and responsible." A number of the more vocal members of the Democratic Party do not have a great allegiance to morality. Would you like more specificity? Off the top of my head: 1. Bill Clinton 2. Michael Moore 3. Barbara Boxer To suggest that these individuals have a personal code that adheres to the truth or "fair play," or that they are even faultlessly loyal to their espoused causes/issues is simply disingenuous. Regarding #1: His "honesty" has never been in question. Even his supporters will admit that. He's not trustworthy. Period. Ask Dianne Feinstein or Lani Guinier. If he thinks he can lie his way out of trouble, he invariably attempts to. As far as allegiance to issues, he sold gays down the river after endlessly speaking about the need for a military wherein homosexuals can serve openly. And he did so after he took their money to help him win his first presidential election. And I might add, as a former Law professor, Clinton knew that what he arrived at as a remedy was legally unsupportable and a farce. Regarding #2: Champion of the oppressed and the working class, right? Yeah, and he is so fanatical in his support of his causes (or his desire to profit from his efforts) that he, at this point, routinely misstates facts, doctors film clips, and stages things that are intentionally misleading. Much like the former president he loves, truth is not even a secondary consideration if he feels his actions will accomplish something he deems worthwhile. Regarding #3: Aggrieved, shocked and enraged feminist so long as the accused practitioners of chauvinism and sexual "oppression" are conservatives. Barbara Boxer is the quintessential situational ethicist. Simply look at the public reactions and her differing tones when addressing the alleged misdeeds of Clarence Thomas in comparison to the much greater alleged misdeeds of our 42nd president. Republicans are far from an entirely trustworthy, honorable lot. But in comparison the Democrats at the beginning of the 21st century, they are. One of the great appeals of liberalism to many (not all), is that liberalism is much looser and freer with standards. Much like the reaction received by Judaism when it first appeared on the planet, a lot of people don't like conservatism. Why? Because it is a pronouncement to the world that there are standards. Not everything is acceptable and OK, and all things are not equal. That is one of the basic underlying components of conservative principles that really chafes at many on the left who prefer to navigate through a world wherein they are more free to do "what feels right" at that particular time.

Would be fine as an issue of importance if, by moral values, we meant "Nobody in the richest country in the world is going to go hungry, or homeless, or not have health care..." or etc. etc. Unfortunately, in the stiflingly-conservative political climate we're currently suffering through, moral value has come to mean "No gay marriage" or "Stamp out pornography" or "Keep prayer in the classroom" or "Keep Janet Jackson's tittie off the TV."

Great trump card for politicians to exploit when they want a diversion from their failures. Society has a basic moral fabric, why do you need to look towards politicians for it? Whatever I do in the privacy of my bedroom is NOT fair-game for political discourse. Behold the politician who offers moral values in the absence of practical fiscal or foreign affairs.

False problem invented by zealots who want the laws bent in their favor. They know their causes, but they don't know history or the ramifications of laws preventing freedoms. The more they cry about moral values the less they actually have. We don't really need to list personal examples, do we? No matter- zealots will defend their own in the face of contemporary and historical evidence.

With a country as large as ours, it's unrealistic to expect everyone to have the same definition of moral values. My morals tell me that marriage is a sacred institution, a child deserves the right to life, September 11th needed to be reacted to through a War on Terror and taxing the rich is not the answer to all of the world's financial problems. Moral values is more than simply an opinion on one or two social issues, rather, moral values are what motivate one to believe certain strategies are right. And that's why I believe Bush got re-elected; his moral values incompassed those of the average American, or at least more so than Kerry's. It's just a thought...

The problem with the discussion on moral values is that many see their existence as valuables-which they are not. Senator Kerry in his bid for the presidency stated numerous times that he valued families in the context of health care and job creation but he missed the essence of moral values. Simultaneously he attempted to promote a neutral proceduralist constitutionalism as way of permitting EVERY value except exceedingly subverted those principles by promoting the ethics of attaining valuables. The theory was inherently contradictory. While then promoting a morally deconstructionalist agenda he lost any moral footing to make any argument whatsoever. In reality ALL issues are moral issues. There is no neutral position. Our founders knew, and this is readily apparent if you read the Federalist Papers, that the constitutional system was to sit atop the Natural Law traditions of our culture. That to properly function, factionalism had to be devolved so those of good moral values could promote legislation for the common good. In this context every discussion from Iraq, abortion, traditional marriage and taxes are moral issues because they are. But only one candidate articulated that position- he won.

Specific to mag's appeal, I don't think that the average American voter has a checklist of moral values that he ticks off when a candidate fits the bill. Things like Iraq, terrorism, the deficit and the economy are not moral values, those are individual areas where the candidate either shows competence or cluelessness . . .or obfuscation. The moral judgement is the personal stuff, the gut feeling. I think that you got an indication of where moral values register on the voters' scale of importance, even though nobody listed them or mentioned them when asked what is important. It's an insidious judgement, very personal. We all made it, just at different times, using our own unique yardsticks. I'd venture to propose that they were more important in 2004 than they were in 1996. Bill Clinton got re-elected, over Bob Dole. Something tells me there was a big pile of kindling from Americans busting their moral values yardsticks and going in to the polls holding their noses, hoping the economy kept growing. I think Bush rated higher on the moral values scale than did Kerry, in 2004. Just an opinion.

I'm interested as to what voters meant by moral values in the context of this election. Was this the gay marriage stuff? If so, I guess I'm a little disappointed that things like Iraq, the economy, terrorism, the federal deficit, didn't register higher on the radar. As I've said elsewhere, I'd love to see things like gay marriage and abortion pushed out to the states to decide, to allow Presidential elections to focus on things like the economy and national security.