Why do Republicans have so many sex scandals?

[Sparko]

"Roger Ailes, former driving force behind Fox: “You’re not saying the conservative things that I want you to say, and you could be a real role model, and you could be a real star, if only you could sound conservative," As recalled by former Fox anchor Alisyn Camerota.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b00fa7de1516c1

As for Conservative moral values", you're right. Morality clearly has nothing to do with Conservative values at Fox...witness the sexual harassment perpetrated by Ailes and O'Reilly.

derp. THAT was your whole point, remember Tassy? That despite being the self-proclaimed promoter of conservative MORAL VALUES they allow people like O'reilly to get away with sexual harassment?

Yet again, you shoot the legs out from under your own argument. Nice.

You are your own worst enemy.

[Roy]

I don't know about this one, Roy.

In a sense the Constitution is a contract between the government and the people. Insisting that contract be enforced isn't really conservative just because the contract has been around for a very long time.

"conservative" (small 'c') isn't just descriptive of a political faction, it has an actual meaning: averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.. The beliefs and convictions of the Founding Fathers as stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are clearly traditional values*, being over two centuries old, so anyone supporting those beliefs is by definition "conservative" with a small 'c'.

Re your comments about the constitution being a contract, MM actually referred to the beliefs/convictions of the founders, not just the constitution, and to the DoI as well.

*They weren't necessarily traditional at the time.

[Meh Gerbil]

"conservative" (small 'c') isn't just descriptive of a political faction, it has an actual meaning: averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.. The beliefs and convictions of the Founding Fathers as stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are clearly traditional values*, being over two centuries old, so anyone supporting those beliefs is by definition "conservative" with a small 'c'.

Re your comments about the constitution being a contract, MM actually referred to the beliefs/convictions of the founders, not just the constitution, and to the DoI as well.

*They weren't necessarily traditional at the time.

Now you're being obstinate.
I'm putting you on my ignore list for 10 minutes.

Think about what you've done.

[Sparko]

"conservative" (small 'c') isn't just descriptive of a political faction, it has an actual meaning: averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.. The beliefs and convictions of the Founding Fathers as stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are clearly traditional values*, being over two centuries old, so anyone supporting those beliefs is by definition "conservative" with a small 'c'.

Re your comments about the constitution being a contract, MM actually referred to the beliefs/convictions of the founders, not just the constitution, and to the DoI as well.

*They weren't necessarily traditional at the time.

So then as a liberal you disagree with such traditional conservative values in the constitution like:
Due process
Protection against illegal search and siezure
Free speech
Freedom of Religion (or from religion)
Owning property
abolishment of slavery
right to vote

and so on. right?

[Roy]

So then as a liberal ...

Since when did "liberal"s have to disagree with all traditional values, and since when was I classed as one? I'm not even USAn, so the US liberal/conservative split hardly applies.

...you disagree with such traditional conservative values in the constitution like:
Due process
Protection against illegal search and siezure
Free speech
Freedom of Religion (or from religion)
Owning property
abolishment of slavery
right to vote

and so on. right?

Wrong. Furthermore, any agreement or disagreement I have with them has nothing to do with whether they are traditional. Also, abolishment of slavery wasn't part of the constitution or the bill of rights - it doesn't have the same pedigree as the others you mention. Allowing slavery is the consistent position in your list.

[Roy]

Now you're being obstinate.
I'm putting you on my ignore list for 10 minutes.

Think about what you've done.

Sorry, I was distracted. You'd better ignore me for another 10 minutes.

[Sparko]

Since when did "liberal"s have to disagree with all traditional values, and since when was I classed as one? I'm not even USAn, so the US liberal/conservative split hardly applies.Wrong. Furthermore, any agreement or disagreement I have with them has nothing to do with whether they are traditional. Also, abolishment of slavery wasn't part of the constitution or the bill of rights - it doesn't have the same pedigree as the others you mention.

I was the one who said that the Fox statement was about patriotism and both sides should agree. Sea then said, no it was just for conservatives and traditional values. When questioned you were the one who said that, no the constitution was all about conservative traditional values, backing up sea's claim that the fox news statement was just for conservatives because it espoused the values of patriotism.

So are you now backing down and saying that being patriotic and supporting the constitution is bipartisan and should be supported by both liberals and conservatives, meaning the the fox statement was not just about conservatives but should be embraced by both sides?

[rogue06]

"Roger Ailes, former driving force behind Fox: “You’re not saying the conservative things that I want you to say, and you could be a real role model, and you could be a real star, if only you could sound conservative," As recalled by former Fox anchor Alisyn Camerota.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b00fa7de1516c1

As for Conservative moral values", you're right. Morality clearly has nothing to do with Conservative values at Fox...witness the sexual harassment perpetrated by Ailes and O'Reilly.

That quote does not support your claim that

They were face of Fox, that self-proclaimed promoter of Conservative moral values.

He said nothing about moral values there, but rather something about sounding more conservative which could simply be about fiscal issues.

And again, if Fox allowed Ailes and O'Reilly to get away with their behavior rather than terminating them you would have a leg to stand on. But they didn't.

They're not like the New York Times, long time champions against discrimination and yet who are facing law suits because of accusations of racial, age, and sexual discrimination and have held nobody accountable. The same with CNN which is ignoring a growing racial discrimination lawsuit while they aggressively pursued O'Reilly.

[Roy]

I was the one who said that the Fox statement was about patriotism and both sides should agree. Sea then said, no it was just for conservatives and traditional values. When questioned you were the one who said that, no the constitution was all about conservative traditional values, backing up sea's claim that the fox news statement was just for conservatives because it espoused the values of patriotism.

Nope, I didn't say that the constitution was all about conservative traditional values - IIRC I hinted that it had been innovative/progressive when written. I said that upholding the values the founding fathers expressed more than 200 years ago was by definition "conservative". Small 'c'.

So are you now backing down and saying that being patriotic and supporting the constitution is bipartisan and should be supported by both liberals and conservatives, meaning the the fox statement was not just about conservatives but should be embraced by both sides?

First, there's a distinction between "the constitution" and "the views of the founding fathers as stated in the constitution" (even ignoring the DoI), as the former incorporates all the subsequent amendments, including the anti-slavery one you used, while the latter does not. One can support the constitution because one agrees with the contents and not because of when it was written and by whom. Second, I didn't say anything at all about the fox news statement - my comment addressed MM's ludicrous claim that espousing views centuries old shouldn't be described as "conservative". Third, the fox statement doesn't actually match MM's mischaracterisation of it, as per both the above distinction re the amendments and the reference to emancipation. What applies to MM's idiocy does not necessarily apply to the Fox statement and vice versa.

I don't see why supporting the constitution couldn't be bipartisan, albeit that US liberals and conservatives might do so in different ways and for different reasons - conservatives because it embodies traditional ideas, and ensures continuity and liberals because it guarantees freedoms and is fluid. But I'm not saying that both camps should support it - or the Fox statement - that's up to individuals. I think that pigeonholing everyone into liberals and conservatives and then attributing specific views to everyone in the other camp is ridiculous. G&S were spot on.

"Every boy and every gal that’s born into the world alive is either a little Liberal or else a little Conservative"

[Sparko]

Nope, I didn't say that the constitution was all about conservative traditional values - IIRC I hinted that it had been innovative/progressive when written. I said that upholding the values the founding fathers expressed more than 200 years ago was by definition "conservative". Small 'c'.First, there's a distinction between "the constitution" and "the views of the founding fathers as stated in the constitution" (even ignoring the DoI), as the former incorporates all the subsequent amendments, including the anti-slavery one you used, while the latter does not. One can support the constitution because one agrees with the contents and not because of when it was written and by whom. Second, I didn't say anything at all about the fox news statement - my comment addressed MM's ludicrous claim that espousing views centuries old shouldn't be described as "conservative". Third, the fox statement doesn't actually match MM's mischaracterisation of it, as per both the above distinction re the amendments and the reference to emancipation. What applies to MM's idiocy does not necessarily apply to the Fox statement and vice versa.

I don't see why supporting the constitution couldn't be bipartisan, albeit that US liberals and conservatives might do so in different ways and for different reasons - conservatives because it embodies traditional ideas, and ensures continuity and liberals because it guarantees freedoms and is fluid. But I'm not saying that both camps should support it - or the Fox statement - that's up to individuals. I think that pigeonholing everyone into liberals and conservatives and then attributing specific views to everyone in the other camp is ridiculous. G&S were spot on.

"Every boy and every gal that’s born into the world alive is either a little Liberal or else a little Conservative"

nice back-pedaling.

[Roy]

nice back-pedaling.

Where am I back-pedalling? I can't be retreating from a comment about Fox's statement or the constitution* when I didn't make one.

You may be confused.

*as distinct from the founding fathers' views found in the constitution

[Sparko]

Where am I back-pedalling? I can't be retreating from a comment about Fox's statement or the constitution* when I didn't make one.

You may be confused.

*as distinct from the founding fathers' views found in the constitution

You jumped in to defend Sea's comment about the "traditional values" - which was obviously you agreeing with his statement, and said that the constitution was conservative and traditional because it was old. MG said that just because it is old doesn't make it conservative, you argued that it did by definition. So I pointed out that the values it espouses are not conservative because it is old, many of them are values that liberals like. then you back-pedaled.

I know you like to nitpick, but it was obvious to everyone reading. Then when called on it, you back-pedalled. It's ok, I understand.

[Mountain Man]

nice back-pedaling.

He does that. He's so desperate to catch us in an error that he often posts without thinking.

[Sparko]

He does that. He's so desperate to catch us in an error that he often posts without thinking.

I think you are talking about Tassy. Roy is generally a good guy who thinks things through, sometimes a bit too much.

[Mountain Man]

I think you are talking about Tassy. Roy is generally a good guy who thinks things through, sometimes a bit too much.

No, Roy has jumped on me several times where he assumed that his misunderstanding was my mistake and then got all belligerent about it when I corrected him.

Maybe he likes me more than he likes you.