As long as the issues are besides the point, may as well add to the fray.

Can a person who gets horny and conducts themselves in manners outside their marital vows and/or has a tendency to avail themselves of some of the extra...perks...of power actually do a good job when they are at work?

Slick Willie did...:shrug:

Slick Willie did...:shrug:

As did Eisenhower, JFK, RFK and Tony Soprano.

Answer: Yes

Pick Your Presidential Candidate:

Candidate A:
Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two Mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10
martinis a day.

Candidate B:
He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used
opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.

Candidate C:
He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an
occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.

Which of these candidates would be your choice?

As long as the issues are besides the point, may as well add to the fray.

Can a person who gets horny and conducts themselves in manners outside their marital vows and/or has a tendency to avail themselves of some of the extra...perks...of power actually do a good job when they are at work?

Yes. I've worked with plenty of men who could use some soap in the mouth but they were very good leaders. I've also seen some women who are hyper sensative and think that just because a man is nice to them they automatically want to sleep with them or are sexually harassing them.

Pick Your Presidential Candidate:

Candidate A:
Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two Mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10
martinis a day.

Candidate B:
He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used
opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.

Candidate C:
He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an
occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.

Which of these candidates would be your choice?

Not Hitler! :yahoo:

Depends on the definition of 'perv'. 10 years ago all gays were thought to be pervs and if anyone found out that's what they were, they were ostracized.

Today, a significant portion (and I won't make up numbers) of our leadership is homosexual and it's not thought (by most) to be a perversion, but a life-style choice.

Pick Your Presidential Candidate:

Candidate A:
Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two Mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10
martinis a day.

Candidate B:
He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used
opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.

Candidate C:
He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an
occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.

Which of these candidates would be your choice?
I could never trust a vegetarian, they're eating the same stuff that food eats.

As long as the issues are besides the point, may as well add to the fray.

Can a person who gets horny and conducts themselves in manners outside their marital vows and/or has a tendency to avail themselves of some of the extra...perks...of power actually do a good job when they are at work?

I get no complaints at work.
I vote yes.

I bet Penn would make a perfect politician!! :coffee:

I think many highly effective people have sexual predilections which the average person might find perverted.

The definition of "pervert" seems to be at issue here. If one is unfaithful to one's marriage vows and has a consensual affair employing nothing, um, in the way of, um, alternative forms of stimulation, then one is simply unfaithful.

If one, however, gets into the many, many "perversions" of all things sexual, including various unconventional activities in the bedroom, socially unacceptable behaviors like peeping toms, sexual harassment, and the several kinds of rape, then one is a pervert.

It's interesting that the latter definition involves alleged assaults substantiated by evidence, and ideally supported by witnesses. The substantiation and support are often there in the more egregious situations, not so much in situations which, after the fact, it seems arguable whether an act of perversion took place. "My word against yours" no longer carries much weight except that which could be called prejudice or popular opinion.

Long story short: I sound like I'm imitating a lawyer, and drawing on my limited law training, I am. The reason for doing so is to show that, being fair, that pesky benefit of the doubt factors in. In polarized situations like politics, however, the weight is tugged from fair to unfair and back again, depending on the perspicacity of the populace.

Amplifying every scintilla of doubt, the press have a field day with every bit of dirt, no matter how small, and almost never report the good things one has done in one's life. Dirt sells. Good news puts people to sleep. So picking fly poopies out of pepper, the press and the public put politicians under the spotlight and magnifying glass, and actual competence and potential for success in the job no longer have anything to do with what happens in the polls.

This is how the machinery, not the people, put idiots in the state and national Congresses, the White House, and positions filled by appointees. The result is wholly in conflict with the intent of the Constitution, and the result of that is that things are no longer working so well in what was once a wildly successful great experiment.

We have strayed a long way from the correct approach originally intended. It's interesting to note that reading those early intentions often makes one say, "OH! Of course! That would fix all kinds of things!"

But now in these latter days we are all about self, the majority apparently are not the people for which the Constitution suited well; we're untrustworthy, rude, self-serving, and don't care to do any research on any topic not directly related to instant rewards. A return to the origins would be the fastest way to stop a lot of the malfunctions of Government, but where is the gumption, where is the spirit, where is the dedication that could muscle this land away from the brink of fragmentation? This is a rhetorical question, because we all know that where such energies exist, they are unfocused, or they are focused inward.

I've also seen some women who are hyper sensative and think that just because a man is nice to them they are sexually harassing them.




I despise women like that ............


and yes Hitler was C

The definition of "pervert" seems to be at issue here. If one is unfaithful to one's marriage vows and has a consensual affair employing nothing, um, in the way of, um, alternative forms of stimulation, then one is simply unfaithful.

:dingding:


Perv: Sandusky, Dalhmer, someone into water sports, small furry animals ....
[of course depending on the person you ask, that could be anything other than 'missionary']

I would not call a harasser a pervert ...... just sad and pathetic

I wonder who Larry might be talking about here :tap:

I wonder who Larry might be talking about here :tap:



Ron Paul

:jerry:


Newt or Cain :whistle:

Ron Paul

:jerry:


Newt or Cain :whistle:

I say Paul just hasn't been caught yet. :lol:

Joking aside, Paul has been married to his wife Carol for almost 55 years. :yay:

I say Paul just hasn't been caught yet. :lol:
Has Ron Paul and Rue Paul ever been seen in the same place at the same time?

Has Ron Paul and Rue Paul ever been seen in the same place at the same time?

:twitch:

Sure they can. A pervert can do anything they want.