Horsefly Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 13 minutes ago, noonereal said: Proper behavior? Who the he!! decided screwing attractive women is improper behavior? If someone breaks a law, get back to me. Otherwise, take your idea of what is proper and... Sorry, I do not do party line. Let's me see, maybe his wife? There are vows given and I'm sure one of them is not screwing and grabbing whomever comes along. If it was above board, there would be no need to hide and payoff for silence, now would there? it all has to do with integrity, if one is not honest with someone close to them, then why would I expect them to behave differently with more complex issues? i believe in moral absolutes not relativism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 17 hours ago, maxchoboian said: I'm sure my wife would be hurt and pissed off if I told her I was going to "bag" whoever the fuck I wanted. Even if I told her, as you suggest, to grow the fuck up. And I would feel the same toward her if she behaved that way. It's an extremely selfish act, and can be a deciding factor as to whether or not people want such an individual to be their elected official. Such conduct by a political figure could very well be a sign of selfish decisions they make in office that affect their constituents. Read my other posts. One's responsibility is their mate and possibly their offspring. So I do agree with part of what you say. If you don't want to vote for someone because they sleep with women that are not their wife I have no problem with that but generally speaking, I think it silly. Ill bet the majority of our presidents and current senators have done so. I just can't take the party line on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 9 minutes ago, Horsefly said: Let's me see, maybe his wife? There are vows given and I'm sure one of them is not screwing and grabbing whomever comes along. If it was above board, there would be no need to hide and payoff for silence, now would there? i believe in moral absolutes not relativism. What is it to you? Let his wife worry about it. Seems she got paid off to put up with it. If you believe in moral absolutes, you be absolutely moral. I could care less. Thing is, I don't hold that as virtuous and think it silly to. We just disagree, not a big deal. Trump does so much "bad" that I think we do him a favor to let our heads explode over such trite matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsefly Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 1 minute ago, noonereal said: What is it to you? Let his wife worry about it. Seems she got paid off to put up with it. If you believe in moral absolutes, you be absolutely moral. I could care less. Thing is, I don't hold that as virtuous and think it silly to. We just disagree, not a big deal. Trump does so much "bad" that I think we do him a favor to let our heads explode over such trite matters. I just told you why it's important. Don't be a Drummer, saying something is "silly" is not compelling of an argument, its vapid. the point is his pursuit of sex outside his marriage was his way of self gratification, only pursuing what was pleasurable and beneficial for him. "Aim above morality. Be not simply good, but be good for something." Thoreau cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 1 minute ago, Horsefly said: I just told you why it's important. I obviously rejected your reason and made it clear that when someone breaks a law, that is when it's a problem. Like the clown being black mailed. I did not know I had to be so literal with you. You should have understood. Maybe you just did not want to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsefly Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 25 minutes ago, noonereal said: I obviously rejected your reason and made it clear that when someone breaks a law, that is when it's a problem. Like the clown being black mailed. I did not know I had to be so literal with you. You should have understood. Maybe you just did not want to? Laws are based on man's interpretation of whats moral at the time. Back during slavery, would you support the slave that tried to escape from the law of slavery? I don't recall the black mail thing, let's shelf that for now and discuss this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarterBlue Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 2 minutes ago, Horsefly said: Laws are based on man's interpretation of whats moral at the time. Back during slavery, would you support the slave that tried to escape from the law of slavery? Some whites did. Heck, some even led/supported insurrection. A certain John Brown comes to mind. Regardless of what's interpreted as moral at a given point in time, there are always truth seekers that buck the prevailing orthodoxy. That is why we have had progress. Unfortunately, history's is more like a tide than a river. The pendulum swings both ways. It is up to each and all of use to educate ourselves and strive to do what's right, opposing what seems wrong even at great sacrifice. But it is also up to each of us to listen to the views of others, even if we find them repugnant. For none of us hold on to absolute truth; we all err. He who is unwilling to listen, largely loses the capacity to learn. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsefly Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 6 minutes ago, DarterBlue said: Some whites did. Heck, some even led/supported insurrection. A certain John Brown comes to mind. Regardless of what's interpreted as moral at a given point in time, there are always truth seekers that buck the prevailing orthodoxy. That is why we have had progress. Unfortunately, history's is more like a tide than a river. The pendulum swings both ways. It is up to each and all of use to educate ourselves and strive to do what's right, opposing what seems wrong even at great sacrifice. But it is also up to each of us to listen to the views of others, even if we find them repugnant. For none of us hold on to absolute truth; we all err. He who is unwilling to listen, largely loses the capacity to learn. I agree. Nooner stated he is only concerned when laws are broken, (evidently he judges morality on laws being broken) I know he's a social progressive and would find slavery repugnant, that's why I asked him about a person breaking the slave laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilDog Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 31 minutes ago, DarterBlue said: Some whites did. Heck, some even led/supported insurrection. A certain John Brown comes to mind. Regardless of what's interpreted as moral at a given point in time, there are always truth seekers that buck the prevailing orthodoxy. That is why we have had progress. Unfortunately, history's is more like a tide than a river. The pendulum swings both ways. It is up to each and all of use to educate ourselves and strive to do what's right, opposing what seems wrong even at great sacrifice. But it is also up to each of us to listen to the views of others, even if we find them repugnant. For none of us hold on to absolute truth; we all err. He who is unwilling to listen, largely loses the capacity to learn. Bruh that was str8 fire you just dropped. Well versed. Horsefly and yourself are the Dr. King/Baldwin types strong yet dignified resolve in most responses. I am more a Garveyite/Malcolm persona i hit back with biting context It takes all types to convey a message. I truly benefit from your input. Concha, Resident Troll, Zulu and a few others that I often disagree with I also respect them for their views and ability to convey their thoughts. On this MLK Bday we can all discuss with decorum and be respectful of others ideas. You are right we are all flawed Humans. Keep posting sir. Concha is just a Knucklehead. Couldn't resist. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 58 minutes ago, Horsefly said: Laws are based on man's interpretation of whats moral at the time. Back during slavery, would you support the slave that tried to escape from the law of slavery? I don't recall the black mail thing, let's shelf that for now and discuss this. you brought up the black mail thing that was my freakin' point, that morals are transient talking to you is a real circle jerk we disagree, i think it's stupid, you think sex is evil just move along, we expressed our views there is no right nor wrong to debate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 46 minutes ago, Horsefly said: Nooner stated he is only concerned when laws are broken, (evidently he judges morality on laws being broken) this is evident to you? your conclusion is a logical fallacy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 45 minutes ago, DevilDog said: Concha is just a Knucklehead that is charitable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsefly Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 55 minutes ago, noonereal said: you brought up the black mail thing that was my freakin' point, that morals are transient talking to you is a real circle jerk we disagree, i think it's stupid, you think sex is evil just move along, we expressed our views there is no right nor wrong to debate Why keep referencing something I don't remember, it doesn't matter if I brought it up? Stop saying something is "silly" as an objection, that is not compelling. Sex is not evil, disguising the perception of wrongdoing by payoffs is. If he didn't think it was immoral, hush money wouldn't have been approached. you were the one that stated you are only concerned if laws are broken, we were talking in the context of morals, so the inference is that morality=legality to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsefly Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 57 minutes ago, noonereal said: this is evident to you? your conclusion is a logical fallacy We were talking morality, in that context, you brought up that you are only concerned if laws are broken. So "yes" that was my conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 46 minutes ago, Horsefly said: Why keep referencing something I don't remember, it doesn't matter if I brought it up? Stop saying something is "silly" as an objection, that is not compelling. Sex is not evil, disguising the perception of wrongdoing by payoffs is. If he didn't think it was immoral, hush money wouldn't have been approached. you were the one that stated you are only concerned if laws are broken, we were talking in the context of morals, so the inference is that morality=legality to you. I hate to say this, honestly, but you are posting as an idiot. You forget what you posted then change the conversation. You present a false equivalency and demand I defend it. (infidelity = slavery) i don't reply to ridiculousness, you should know that by now. Maybe you are having a bad day or have drank a bit early in the day but either way, it's on you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 43 minutes ago, Horsefly said: We were talking morality, in that context, you brought up that you are only concerned if laws are broken. So "yes" that was my conclusion. Honest, then you are an idiot. I hope to God you are not serious so I don't have to think of you as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsefly Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 6 minutes ago, noonereal said: I hate to say this, honestly, but you are posting as an idiot. You forget what you posted then change the conversation. You present a false equivalency and demand I defend it. (infidelity = slavery) i don't reply to ridiculousness, you should know that by now. Maybe you are having a bad day or have drank a bit early in the day but either way, it's on you. You are the one that said that unless laws are broken then you don't care, you brought that up in the context of morality. So the question is can laws be immoral, that's why I brought up slavery? And last time about the black mail thing, what the hell are you talking about? It's not a trick question Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 1 minute ago, Horsefly said: You are the one that said that unless laws are broken then you don't care, you brought that up in the context of morality. So the question is can laws be immoral, that's why I brought up slavery? And last time about the black mail thing, what the hell are you talking about? It's not a trick question What is wrong with you? You can't let things go. Then you wind up all upset. I don't want to upset you and then you leave again but I won't take this nonsense. It's up to you. You made a silly equivalency so just move on. Like I said, it's up to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsefly Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 5 minutes ago, noonereal said: What is wrong with you? You can't let things go. Then you wind up all upset. I don't want to upset you and then you leave again but I won't take this nonsense. It's up to you. You made a silly equivalency so just move on. Like I said, it's up to you. Do you know how to communicate with folks, why are you flustered? I asked about the black mail, and you haven't provided it yet. Very odd and strange. The question still stands, can laws be immoral, since you only care if laws are broken, im challenging you on that theory? For you laws are the end-all-be-all. if you can't answer this without insults, then I see why you have taken on independent study, you would fail, or probably did, in a real classroom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 7 minutes ago, Horsefly said: im challenging you on that theory? It's not my theory OK, you want it this way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 You know what, I changed my mind. I will take the high road and simply let you have the last word as you can't seem to not. Go ahead. But after that, if you don't stop I will hit back and you won't be happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsefly Posted January 15, 2018 Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 5 minutes ago, noonereal said: You know what, I changed my mind. I will take the high road and simply let you have the last word as you can't seem to not. Go ahead. But after that, if you don't stop I will hit back and you won't be happy. 😂 what the hell are you babbling about now? I didn't think questions would get you so flustered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted January 16, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 The plot thickens.... Report: Porn star said she had yearlong affair with Trump in 2006 Dylan Stableford 1 hour 44 minutes ago Donald Trump, Stormy Daniels. (Yahoo News photo illustration; photos: Carolyn Kaster/AP, Gregg DeGuire/WireImage/Getty Images) A porn star who was reportedly paid $130,000 before the 2016 presidential election for her silence over an alleged sexual relationship she had with Donald Trump a decade earlier told Slate magazine that the alleged affair lasted “nearly a year,” the online magazine reported Tuesday. According to Slate magazine editor in chief Jacob Weisberg, Stephanie Clifford, the adult film actress also known as Stormy Daniels, told him that she first met Trump at a 2006 celebrity golf tournament in Nevada, where they had the first of numerous sexual encounters. At the time, Trump had been married to Melania for less than two years. On Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported the alleged $130,000 payment was arranged by the Trump Organization’s longtime lawyer, Michael Cohen. According to the New York Times, the arrangement came as Clifford was “discussing sharing her account with ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’” and Slate. Both the White House and Cohen fiercely denied the reports. “These rumors have circulated time and again since 2011,” Cohen said in a statement to the Times. “President Trump once again vehemently denies any such occurrence as has Ms. Daniels.” Cohen also released a letter signed by Daniels denying that she had a “sexual and/or romantic affair with Mr. Trump many, many, many years ago.” “Rumors that I have received hush money from Donald Trump are completely false,” the letter said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thc6795 Posted January 16, 2018 Report Share Posted January 16, 2018 26 minutes ago, DBP66 said: The plot thickens.... Report: Porn star said she had yearlong affair with Trump in 2006 Dylan Stableford 1 hour 44 minutes ago Donald Trump, Stormy Daniels. (Yahoo News photo illustration; photos: Carolyn Kaster/AP, Gregg DeGuire/WireImage/Getty Images) A porn star who was reportedly paid $130,000 before the 2016 presidential election for her silence over an alleged sexual relationship she had with Donald Trump a decade earlier told Slate magazine that the alleged affair lasted “nearly a year,” the online magazine reported Tuesday. According to Slate magazine editor in chief Jacob Weisberg, Stephanie Clifford, the adult film actress also known as Stormy Daniels, told him that she first met Trump at a 2006 celebrity golf tournament in Nevada, where they had the first of numerous sexual encounters. At the time, Trump had been married to Melania for less than two years. On Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported the alleged $130,000 payment was arranged by the Trump Organization’s longtime lawyer, Michael Cohen. According to the New York Times, the arrangement came as Clifford was “discussing sharing her account with ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’” and Slate. Both the White House and Cohen fiercely denied the reports. “These rumors have circulated time and again since 2011,” Cohen said in a statement to the Times. “President Trump once again vehemently denies any such occurrence as has Ms. Daniels.” Cohen also released a letter signed by Daniels denying that she had a “sexual and/or romantic affair with Mr. Trump many, many, many years ago.” “Rumors that I have received hush money from Donald Trump are completely false,” the letter said. Only thing that thickens is your skull Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.