joe mechanic
Member
Skewer or not, I do not think Mr. Gingrich played around while on the phone in the oval office. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Latest Newt Toot
- Thread starter delldude
- Start date
777 fixer
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,792
- Reaction score
- 900
You won't get an argument out of me. Of course we know what's more likely to happen.
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
777 fixer
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,792
- Reaction score
- 900
Oh I get it, as long as you don't mess around in the Oval Office it's okay. Nice.
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
And as long as it's not in the Oval office you can lie your a$$ off about it, condemn other people for doing it and you get a free pass by the religious nut jobs so long as you say a hail marry eat a cracker and say "I was saved". If that is not hypocrisy I do not know what is.
joe mechanic
Member
It would be a similar issue to an atheist not wanting something done on their tax dollar.
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
joe mechanic
Member
If an atheist has an issue as to how his tax dollars are spent with regard to placement of religious symbolism placed on public property, then on the flip side, tax dollars being spent paying the Presidents salary for getting a blowjob on the public dime fits within the same criteria if you ask me.
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
First of all the president is never off duty. Not like he clocks in and out. Second, that argument was never made. The only argument I ever heard made was that of morality. That he cheated on his wife and had no moral character. Third, there is nothing in the COTUS about getting a blow job or any other sexual favors while in office. I looked. He could have an orgy in the Oval and I do not think there would be a legal claim against it.
joe mechanic
Member
Regardless, if I am spending my tax dollar paying his salary, it is no less like you spending your tax dollar for something you do not justify.
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
Sorry but that argument does not fly. We live in a land run by the rule of law. There is no law prohibiting a blow job in the Oval Office. Whether you like it or not does not add up to a bucket of warm spit. And I am pretty sure the fact that he got his knob polished in the Oval instead of a bed room would not have mattered. The issue was morality, not location.
joe mechanic
Member
You as I have direct issue as to how your tax dollar is spent. That simple.....Morality for a blow job or a cross on fed property is a moral issue for you because you do not morally agree to tax dollars being spent in support of a religious symbol. I do not support my tax dollar being spent for a blowjob in the oval office. Legal or not, thats the way it is Bucko.
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
No, as mush as you would like it to be a moral issue, religious symbols on public property is a legal issue. And again, what you like does not matter in a court of law. The law is what matters in a court of law. There is no law against a blow job. There is a law about separation of church and state.
No one cares what you or I don't like. If you have a legal argument, have at it, if you don't, suck it up. That's the way it is sweet heart. That is why they went after him for perjury, not having a blow job in the Oval office. There was no legal grounds for the later.
joe mechanic
Member
This church and state claim is rather ambiguous. Last I checked (and it has been a while) the government hasn't established or supported a religion from what I recollect. At least since our ancestors left England some time ago. So with that being said, we both have the right to object how our tax dollars are being spent, whether legally or such, wouldn't you agree?
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
You need to check again. There have been quite a few cases where religious symbols have had to be removed from public property due to violations of the 1st amendment.
What does 'legally or such' mean? The opposite of legal is illegal. So if it is legal, you can object on moral grounds, through a temper tantrum, hold your breath till you turn blue or what ever else you can come up with. What you cannot do is prevent the person(s) from doing what ever it is you don't like. So no I do not agree.
I did not like the fact that Nazis were going to march in Skokie IL. My parents were in Camps run by those SOB's. How ever I supported their right to march. Lot's of interesting dinner conversations back then. What I like does not affect what is legal.
What does 'legally or such' mean? The opposite of legal is illegal. So if it is legal, you can object on moral grounds, through a temper tantrum, hold your breath till you turn blue or what ever else you can come up with. What you cannot do is prevent the person(s) from doing what ever it is you don't like. So no I do not agree.
I did not like the fact that Nazis were going to march in Skokie IL. My parents were in Camps run by those SOB's. How ever I supported their right to march. Lot's of interesting dinner conversations back then. What I like does not affect what is legal.
