Should Political Appointee's be Restricted from Hypocrisy?

**Kennylz** · August 30, 2007, 03:34 PM

I was just thinking about all the hubub lately about the conservative Republican Larry Craig trying to 'get it on' in an airport bathroom. The man was an outspoken denyer or gay rights.

Should that be a crime in, and apon itself that someone could be in a position to affect the the country on such a grand scale, but not really beleive, or do what they advocate?

There is diplomatic immunity. Now, I think there should be Political Responsibility.

**Gelgoog** · August 30, 2007, 03:52 PM

no, no they shouldnt...god we wouldnt have any politicians left if that were the case. every single person is a hypocrite in some way. the only way to judge someone on their moral character is to vote them out of office. we dont live in puritan america anymore sorry.

**Kennylz** · August 30, 2007, 03:54 PM

I'm not saying they have to be perfect Christians. Only if they try and pass laws that force others to be perfection Christians, and they are not ones themselves should they be at fault.

This isn't about getting rid of "sin" or "flaws" only Hypocrisy.

**mongrel** · August 30, 2007, 04:33 PM

Yet any public official found in that position would be instantly sacked without pension, no doubt. Let all political statements be made on oath and political advertising be subject to the same standards as those for food and household goods.

**Da Skinna** · August 30, 2007, 10:38 PM

It's like ridding in one fell swoop all corruption in Russia: the country will fall apart.

America is a country based on saying one thing and doing another.

**Captain Blackadder** · August 31, 2007, 12:49 AM

Every public official is a hypocrite you would criple the goverment. Both sides of politics are hypocrites the right wing people who yell about war yet they never served and the lefties who say help the poor and we need to use less energy who are extreamly wealthy businessmen and the biggest users of energy in the world.

**Sétanta** · August 31, 2007, 12:58 AM

You want to ban hypocrisy in a nation that places freedom of thought, expression and speech in the highest regard? If that isn't hypocritical I don't know what is.

And what is this gay rights thing you speak of.

**Da Skinna** · August 31, 2007, 12:43 PM

Well, like Haggard, what's his face was a closet case, and condemning homosexuality as a sinful act. The hypocrisy is him going to a big black man in a public washroom and saying "I'm a US senator, ya know." to try and get some public washroom action.

Him and Haggard are the easiest of the hypocrites to spot right now because their cases are pretty straight-forward (while they're not *guffaw*).

Now, should we not try and root out dangerous hypocrisy at least? Hypocrisy that treads over others rights and liberties?

I say we should. Because if people are allowed to be hypocrites and are violating others God given rights, then that means liberty only applies to the few. And that's not what America is about, it's not what democracy and equality is about, it's a capitalistic democracy, where money buys rights and privileges. And too far down that road you get fascism.

So... hypocrisy is bad, any way you look at it, but it's inevitable, it's pretty basic human nature, but the dangers of hypocrisy are most felt when applied in politics, so yes, political appointees should be restricted from dangerous hypocrisy.

**Gelgoog** · September 01, 2007, 07:05 PM

the problem is politicians have to change their stance on alot of issues because of realities. sure they might want to ban guns, but their constituents may not want so. in order to get re-elected they must pander to masses.