Second woman accuses Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax of sexual assault


#21

No, sorry, he lied in circumstances in which he should have lied, in which anyone would have lied, and justifiably so: an attempt to probe into something – his personal life – that had nothing to do with his fitness for office (at least, according to me).

And in light of the character of the man leading the Republican Party today … the idea that Republicans were upholding high moral standards is enough to make a cat laugh.


#22

I’m getting a bit tired of people assuming that President Trump is a sexual deviant or somehow immoral or otherwise criminal in some fashion. Being ACCUSED of such by one’s political opponents is “proof” of NOTHING.
Secondarily, Clinton was being sued for something which he actually did–and was fined $800,000+ for doing. Probing into his behavior with other women is a perfectly legitimate line of questioning to prove one’s case. He SHOULD have told the truth. His perjury and other crimes were summarily dismissed by his Democrat fans anyway. The truth might have embarrassed him, but so what? He WAS an embarrassment to all of us who still have a moral compass and his perfidy was applauded by Democrats, some of whom offered to give him a BJ if he’d just support abortion on demand.


#23

Have you tried looking?

All the proof I need to doubt the guy is in the link.


#24

Also of relevance: in 1968 the hard Left ran a presidential candidate on the Peace and Freedom Party ticket. (I think this still exists, but almost all of its supporters are now in the Democratic Party.) The candidate was one Eldridge Cleaver. In a book he wrote before becoming famous (as a Black Panther leader) he all-but-confessed to committing rape. Didn’t bother his Leftist supporters then.


#25

I don’t think he’s a sexual deviant. He’s a perfectly normal male. But he’s no gentleman.

I understand why conservatives may want to hoist the Left on their own petard. But I believe we should be absolutely rigid on this key question: the state has the right to investigate actual crimes. It does not have the right to investigate personal behavior, no matter how crude or disgusting. It’s the Left that wants to expand the power of the state into every nook and cranny of personal life.

Voters have the right to probe a candidate’s personal behavior, where it may be relevant to how the candidate would behave in office. I think Clinton’s behavior towards women was on the borderline of relevant behavior, but …
… I don’t want political leaders who are saints. It’s a nasty old world out there, and saints are too likely to assume that everyone is basically good. (This is what is at the core of liberals’ beliefs: surely those drug addicts lying on the pavement in their own excrement in San Francisco are victims … not responsible for their own condition.)

I don’t care about Trump’s personal relations, and I don’t care very much about his business deals. I assume that doing serious business is not a job for saints. I only care about how capable he is to make cold, sober, shrewd judgements about political questions. I don’t think he is very capable. This is where we disagree.

One of the worst Presidents of the 20th Century was Jimmy Carter. I believe he was, personally, a very good, moral man. I admire him personally. But when you’re going up against liars and murderers … I want our policemen to be tough, and our social workers to be nice.

One of the greatest Presidents of the 20th Century was Richard Nixon … “Tricky Dick”. Not a deeply moral man, but … a very shrewd one. He realized we couldn’t win in Vietnam, and negotiated a face-saving surrender for us there. He realized that, contrary to 20 years of hysterical propaganda, the Chinese were not the main threat, the Russians were. And turned 20 years of bedrock American foreign policy towards China upside down, which in turn allowed the Chinese to abandon socialism and lift a billion people out of poverty.

He also understood national pride other people’s national pride. I remember him speaking, off the cuff, or so it sounded, and saying “The Russians are a great people … the Chinese are a great people …” A very important quality for an American national leader.

I wish we had him in office today.


#26

Thank God we DON’T have Nixon today, Doug! This moron invented the EPA, just for one example–an agency that’s run roughshod over everyone’s right to do with their own property what they want to do, and promulgated tens of thousands of “regulations,” each with the force of law to FORCE people to behave how the bureaucrats IN the EPA thought people. SHOULD behave. BTW, there are STILL a billion Chinese living in RELATIVE poverty and it was AFTER Nixon that the Chinese promoted forced abortions in an effort to control their population.


#27

Flatly disagree. “Thou shalt not bear false witness,” and many people do admit their wrongs. Lying isn’t justified.


#28

The Chinese are on their way up. Yes, on current trends (which, of course, we must not assume will continue indefinitely), their per-person income won’t pass the US’s until about 2050 … another generation … their GNP (again, on current trends) will pass ours within a few years. Of course the future is not predictable. But capitalism is a powerful system for creating wealth, even without liberal democracy … but it also builds the foundation for liberal democracy, an educated middle class.

If the Chinese can avoid the terrible mental illness which seems to have taken hold of our future ruling class – the kids at our elite universities – and keep their strong family values and love of their country and culture … they will be the leading nation of humanity by the end of the century. Of course, this assumes no all-out big war.

They foolishly implemented the one-child policy (leading to widespread female infanticide) because they bought the hysterical Leftist ‘Population Bomb’ nonsense. Actually, population growth will level off soon, at about 11 billion people, and then probably start to decline: as soon as women get an education and can have a career, even just working in a factory, they stop being baby machines. It’s happening in Iran!!! Again, good old capitalism…

Nixon did some foolish things: wage-and-price controls, for one. Playing amateur spy by bugging Democratic headquarters for another. I think he started the National Endowment for the Arts, so liberal mushheads could give awards for people whose idea of art is a crucifix upside-down in a jar of urine. He was trying to get the liberals to love him, which of course they didn’t. (It’s smart political warfare to try to neutralize as much of your opposition as possible, which means making verbal concessions to your opponent’s base. Obama was very good at this. But anytime you actually pass a law, or start a new Government department you must assume that (1) it will be there forever, and (2) at some point in the future it will be adminstered and interpreted by your deadly enemies.)

The EPA has definitely been abused, but I don’t think we should endorse the idea that anyone can do anything with his property that he wants. Commonsense conservatism (the two terms are synonyms, really) should always be in play here. I remember a few decades ago there was an eccentrict English aristocrat lady who owned an island off the Scottish coast which she claimed she would lease to the Soviets for a submarine base. She was probably just mad, or making a joke, but I don’t think Mrs Thatcher would have let her do that. And quite right too.

If you want to build a factory, or raise pigs in your backyard, in a residential neighborhood, surely you should be stopped from doing that? Or if you want to build a factory that pours choking fumes into the air? Should your local radical imam – who is careful to observe the letter of the law – be allowed to open a high-explosives factory? Surely no sensible conservative would want that.

I love libertarians … they are ‘conservatism with a human face’ on campuses, and do a brilliant job of refuting socialist insanity. But … they fall prey to the same temptation Marxists do … take a few simple ideas, which may have some merit, and then try to elaborate a whole political program on top of them, interpreting them rigidly. They want to auction off the National Parks!!! Some of them want Open Borders! Some of them want to fund the military by voluntary contributions!!!

We need to cooperate with the LIbertarians but not catch the political disease they have. We ought to be the champions of the commonsense that almost everyone, except a few ideologues, have:
don’t make radical changes when you don’t have to, especially not ones dictated by some abstract theory thought up by a guy who has never actually left his library;
if it’s not broke don’t fix it;
when you do need to change, do it slowly;
people appreciate what they have paid for/worked for, and don’t really appreciate things given to them for free;
always check and see if your well-intentioned law is actually doing what it was supposed to do;
be on the alert for unintended consequences;
know that you get more of what you subsidize and less of what you tax;
don’t trust that nice man offering you free stuff;
keep your powder dry;
don’t spend more than you have or can reasonably expect to have in the future if you do have to borrow;
live within your means;…
keep a reserve …
know that men and women are different, and that
cultures are different … in most countries the average man has contempt for the law (and rightly so), and expects to bribe and cheat, and only trusts his relatives – if he moves the US he doesn’t instantly change those attitudes, so be careful whom you let in;
above all don’t trust politicians offering you Heaven-on-Earth, if you just give them Power.


#29

Never, ever lie … hmmm…

How about this situation, a true story: I help some people who live in a non-democratic country: they are trying to change things, little by little.

I help them by sending them used laptops, which I get here and there and (with the help of a friend) refurbish. They are used to send reports out of that country to a website which is maintained by someone else, living abroad. That website tells the truth about conditions in that country – and it’s read by a number of the inhabitants of that country too. Internet connections there are possible although very expensive and a pain in the neck to get … you have to go to a public place where there is connectivity. But people do it. They also have ingenious ways of getting web content passed around without having to connect to the internet. People will do a lot, for liberty.

I get them into that country by getting people who are going there (mainly on vacations) to take them in.

Now, if they are questioned at Customs, “Is this laptop yours?” I tell them to say, “Yes it is.” In other words, to lie. (In the past, if you had two laptops, they might confiscate one and hold it until you left. But things have gotten a bit more liberal recently. I’ve gotten in several laptops without a problem over the last three years.)

Anyway, it seems to me that here is a case where lying is justified. Wouldn’t you agree?


#30

My point is (and was above) that the EPA has NO BUSINESS dictating what anyone can do with their property. If ANYONE does, it’s the STATES. Your example of Scotland is inane and doesn’t apply at all to the U.S. We already HAVE an example of nearby islands and former U.S. property being “leased” to foreign entities…including Russia. The Chinese have “leased” bases at BOTH ends of the Panama Canal, for example which has the potential for restricting U.S. naval movements between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans in the event of war. Zoning laws prevent anyone from building factories in residential neighborhoods—and from raising pigs in your backyard. They are NOT “dictates” from the EPA.


#31

As a general rule, we ought to tell the truth. Just as a pragmatic mattter, if nothing else …

In politics, if you get the reputation for being dodgy with the truth, you lose the ability to convince people.

However, remember that we are in a war. The Hard Left in the US will stop at NOTHING to destroy this country. The truth about them should be enough, but … there are circumstances in which you ought to lie about yourself.

Example: suppose you are a conservative student, applying to do a PhD in the liberal arts or social sciences, but you have not been politically active, and your politics are not a matter of public record. I can guarantee that at a large number of colleges, if the selection committee finds out you are a conservative, you can kiss goodbye to doing a PhD there. So …you need to be economical with the truth about your political views. They’re not going to ask you “Are you a conservative?” but they may try certain ploys designed to bring out your views. You owe them nothing!!! Avoid telling an outright lie as much as possible, but … if you have to mislead them, do so.

We’re in a war. We must never forget that.


#32

It’s a sad state of affairs if that’s the way most colleges hand out PhDs these days, but it does insure one thing. There will be very few conservative professors “polluting the minds” of our youth.

Having gone to college with some of the people who now have that degree, high intelligence is not a critical part of the equation. Having the ability to stick through the process has more to do with it.


#33

…as well as being able to echo what the “professors” feed you whether you believe in it or not.


#34

Roseanne Barr ran on their ticket in 2012.

Eldridge Cleaver later in life was decidedly not left. He’s no Thomas Sowell, but he is someone who later came to understand just how toxic the far left was.


#35

I believe Roseanne Barr’s running mate was Cindy Shehan if it was the ticket that was on the ballot in Florida. Talk about a pair that is one step from the loony bin!


#36

Yes, he later had a complete “conversion”, although I would be more than a bit skeptical about his sincerity. He was, from beginning to end, a “hustler”, albeit a talented one (and almost certainly a murderer). The Wikipedia article on him has all the relevant details and makes for very interesting reading. (When Leftists criticize Trump, I remind them who their preferred Presidential candidate was – an admitted serial rapist at the time they nominated and campaigned for him.)

Although I wouldn’t use Cleaver as an example of it, there are indeed many examples of people who have changed their lives for the better through sincere conversion to a religion – the KKK bomb-maker Tommy Tarrants is an example, as is Malcolm X.


#37

Not just that; he was at his heart a Marxist revolutionary, but then he took a tour of the existing communist societies and realized they were all full of crap. As bad as America might be, they were all 10x worse.

He had sort of a Churchill moment of insight where he could finally put things into perspective.

And oh yes, in that interview, he admits openly that he is easily the sort of person that should be behind bars.


#38

No, I would not. The end doesn’t justify the means. God calls us to obedience, not expedience. I’m not saying I’m immune to the temptation to lie, but that doesn’t excuse it.


#39

Not cold or snowy enough here in Baltimore. I wish I were back in Chitown. We’ve only had a few inches of snow, but it really got cold a few weeks back. It was nice. Very refreshing!


#40

There are times when lying is not only acceptable, but required. Not everyone has the right to your truth. For example, during the Holocaust, there were many German Christians who would hide the Jews in their homes or properties. When the Gestapo would come calling, they lied to them about the whereabouts of the Jews they were hiding. If a robber broke into your home and you hustled your children into another bedroom closet, and the robber wanted to know where they were, you have every right and OBLIGATION to not tell him the truth. These are extreme examples (and there are many more like them) that I’ve provided. I firmly believe, that in everyday life, lying is sinful. I knew a lady who lived near where I did who, when faced with personal questions from others, would just not answer. She would change the subject and thus avoid having to lie or respond to questions that were not the business of the inquirer.