Another reason Christians are retarded (Sanford thread)

ib1yysguy

Junior Member
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfSUFEeIwG0"]YouTube - Sanford: King David Didn't Resign, So Neither Will I[/ame]

RETARDED.
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5QqEmBi8iw&feature=related"]YouTube - Betty Bowers Explains Prayer to Everyone Else[/ame]

christianity.jpg
 
I could possibly accept that if it were just the affair, but pursuing the affair on the public dime is another matter entirely. Even if he repays the money AFTER HE HAD BEEN CAUGHT.
 
I could possibly accept that if it were just the affair, but pursuing the affair on the public dime is another matter entirely. Even if he repays the money AFTER HE HAD BEEN CAUGHT.
Yeah, because running off and not telling anybody where you've gone to is the best way to keep a big secret. He was clearly aiming at not getting caught.
 
All thieves sholuld get off if they just repay the money they stole?
The law is supposed to be blind.

He's not a thief legally. The trip was legal. However, in my view using funds in that way is unbecoming of a public official, and the legal loophole needs to be plugged. Returning the funds helps, but it does not restore Sanfords honor.
 
He's not a thief legally. The trip was legal. However, in my view using funds in that way is unbecoming of a public official, and the legal loophole needs to be plugged. Returning the funds helps, but it does not restore Sanfords honor.

I'm sorry but it's so funny that the affair doensn't bother you but the trip does. I think the whole thing is wrong but politicians ripping off the taxpayers for personal gain is not new to Sanford. I'd be glad for you to join us in the desire for freeloading politicians to stop sucking off the public tit.
 
He's not a thief legally. The trip was legal. However, in my view using funds in that way is unbecoming of a public official, and the legal loophole needs to be plugged. Returning the funds helps, but it does not restore Sanfords honor.

now that i absolutely agree with. that is the point i've been trying to make. well said WM
 
He's not a thief legally. The trip was legal. However, in my view using funds in that way is unbecoming of a public official, and the legal loophole needs to be plugged. Returning the funds helps, but it does not restore Sanfords honor.

HUH? State governments pay for personal trips of governors?
Link please.
 
I'm sorry but it's so funny that the affair doensn't bother you but the trip does. I think the whole thing is wrong but politicians ripping off the taxpayers for personal gain is not new to Sanford. I'd be glad for you to join us in the desire for freeloading politicians to stop sucking off the public tit.

It's true, the affair doesn't really bother me. It's a personal matter between him and his wife. What can be derived from his ability to act as a public official through his unfaithfulness is something different, and voters should weigh whether they're willing to accept that.
 
I've never really been angry at politicians for drawing a salary. It's sort of an irrational populist response to complain about them. I'm pretty sure most politicians aren't in it for the money; Obama could have probably made a lot more money with his charisma and law degree elsewhere.

And when states neglect salary due to this populist irrationality, the effects aren't good for governance. Few people, even those really interested in the process, have the time to do what politicians do for free. So you'd have a situation like in New Hampshire, where legislators are paid 100 dollars a month. It's mostly composed of retirees and rich people. Or in Alabama, where it's part time and pays little, so the legislature has a huge base of teachers being legislators in the summer. Realistically, their salaries costs very, very little per a person, composes a minuscule part of the budget, and if they didn't have them the money that was "saved" wouldn't stretch very far.

However, when politicians take bribes or abuse their allowances in unethical ways, that does piss me off.
 
i was agreeing with the legal part and assumed WM meant that it should be a loophole that needs closing

I didn't ask the question well. WM said there was a legal loophole Sanford used to take this trip. I was just curious what it was.
 
I didn't ask the question well. WM said there was a legal loophole Sanford used to take this trip. I was just curious what it was.

I don't know. I wrote that post off the assumption that he wasn't violating the law, and was just exploiting it. Forgive me if I'm wrong. O_o
 
Back
Top