Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Doreen
And, since you cherry pick one sentence out of my post to respond to, I'll add another sentence that was in my post as to why I think it's different for Obama:
<<I'll readily admit that what goes on in marriages is strictly between the spouses. But somehow someway I have it in my head that men and women seeking public endorsement to an office of TRUST should be held to the light of a heavier candle.>>
And, the pre-set excuse of yours and others is - what goes on between a man and a woman in marriage is no one's business but their own (or words to that effect). You're giving Obama a pass on the chance this story may be proven to be true.
|
It's impossible to say that I'm giving Obama a "pass" on anything, because the way I see it, there is no "pass" that needs to be given in the first place, because it is NONE of my business and NOT my issue to judge. I'm saying that my worldview dictates that it's none of my freaking business if he cheats on his wife, and it wouldn't my business if he was a teacher in a local school, the clerk at a local gas station, or my next door neighbor. Unless it's MY spouse cheating on ME, then it's none of my business and I have no place to make it my business because it's salacious and fun to talk about.
That's not making "excuses," that's having some line drawn somewhere in my life of the fact that there are just some things that are better off without my nose being stuck in them. Perhaps you don't have a similar line, or your line is conditional on what job a person has, as it seems to be. Mine is unconditional.
If your thoughts on politicians have a built-in "trust" policy, I hate to be the first to tell you, you're going to be let down.