To be fair, Colby, he was in no way advocating the gov’t intervene, he was just disgusted that it existed. Aren’t you?

I think there is a big difference in the gov’t telling us what we should do (and enforce it through legislation) and someone expressing outrage at something.

Yes, Colby, like the true lib you are, you support infidelity. Good for you! You live in the shadow of the Kennedys and John Edwards!

Congrats

Good grief, do you people not know the difference between criticism from a private person and the “nanny state” concept?

I like this site, but how can you manage to write so often about competing governing philosophies yet know so little about them?

The ad borders on pornographic, they ought to be arrested for soliciting prostitution.

Did Hannity express outrage over Gingrich’s pecados or Sanford’s pecado? I don’t think so.

TylerDurden says:
May 13, 2010 at 3:22 pm

Yes, Colby, like the true lib you are, you support infidelity. Good for you! You live in the shadow of the Kennedys and John Edwards!

—

I had no idea Poppy Bush, Ensign, Gingrich, McCain, Sanford and Vitter were liberal.

Look I understand the difference between the claims that Hannity is making in the two segments. And I’m not sure how TylerDurden surmises that I support infidelity (though I gather he’s just using some provocative hyperbole that runs so rampant on comments.) I am not a fan of Ashley Madison, but it doesn’t particularly disgust me. Its just mostly sad.

I love Sean’s appeals to emotions, that’s his only argument. I can come up with so many more arguments against the website. But I won’t, because I think it’s a somewhat intriguing idea, well, if it adds a swingers aspect to it anyways.

Colby Hall says:
May 13, 2010 at 3:28 pm

Look I understand the difference between the claims that Hannity is making in the two segments.”

The term “nanny state” was thrown around quite liberally while the to alleged that the Obama administration though we were too stupid to figure out what was good and bad for ourselves. Cut to a few minutes later, Sean Hannity seemed to forget his libertarian ways, and shifted to “moral outrage” mode, as he took on the owner of AshleyMadison.com, a dating site that encourages affairs among married individuals.”

The above proves you don’t understand the difference.

Edwards was nasty, a meat sandwich with Chris Dodd o_O

I don’t care if you are left, right, or center. Can’t we all agree that cheating on your spouse is wrong? I would hope we can.

What if the infidelity is actually consensual and both participated? You know, like swingers parties. Is it still wrong for them?

Snipzor says:
May 13, 2010 at 3:30 pm

I love Sean’s appeals to emotions, that’s his only argument.”

I guess you didn’t watch the video.

He talked about the morality of it, the glorification of infidelity and the negative impact it has on the family.

What if the infidelity is actually consensual and both participated? You know, like swingers parties. Is it still wrong for them?

I don’t consider that cheating. I consider that a lifestyle choice. Cheating is going behind a partner’s back and doing that you wouldn’t do or tell them to their face.

MichelleF says:
May 13, 2010 at 3:31 pm

I don’t care if you are left, right, or center. Can’t we all agree that cheating on your spouse is wrong? I would hope we can.

—

Absolutely, it is wrong. You’ve wronged your spouse in a terribly hurtful manner, and if you are a Christian, you have committed a sin.

—

Curiously, Michelle, I know Greta once had ads from this disgusting company. Does she still?

I couldn’t tell you King, I don’t watch her show. I sure hope she doesn’t.

Colby Hall: “Look I understand the difference between the claims that Hannity is making in the two segments.”

Then why did you imply that Hannity was not being consistent by not applying his “libertarian ways” to both?

The best explanation is you just had a brain cramp. Which is understandable with the amount of content you have to produce.

The less charitable explanation is that you really have never given libertarian/conservative thought much serious contemplation (even if only to criticize it), and that most of what you know about right-leaning Americans is what you’ve gleaned from liberal caricatures of them.

There is a difference between being morally outraged and wanting the government to intervene. I would have thought you would have to be a socialist not to see that!

I thought libertarians didn’t give a shit about what other people do in their own homes.

Believe it or not, one can still be a libertarian and also believe in maintaining one’s marriage vows.

Yea, but I thought libertarians didn’t give a shit about OTHER PEOPLE.

You obviously don’t know much about libertarian philosophy. Libertarians are very interested in other people, and especially ensuring everyone’s freedom from intrusive government. Libertarians are actually far more concerned about protecting people’s rights than the Democrat party, which is about expanding the power of the government bureaucracy.

If you listen to what Hannity is saying in this clip, he explains over and over again that he (Hannity) wouldn’t want to make money from the kinds of web site his guest runs, but at no point does Hannity say this guy should be arrested or legally prevented from doing so. Hannity is not a hard-line libertarian, but even so, there is nothing in this interview that goes against the precepts of libertarianism.

Felix, it’s obvious you have no understanding of libertarian philosophy (Right-wing, or left-wing libertarianism). If libertarians have a problem with what other people do in their own time, or business, they don’t go on tirades against them because it’s none of their business.

Snipzor, after you have read some Hayek, Friedman, Nozick, Rothbard, Mises, etc. you can come and lecture me on libertarianism. In the meantime, don’t show off your ignorance.

I wrote a paper mocking Mises and Rothbard, how neat that you reference them. How topical.

If all you got out of reading Mises and Rothbard was that libertarians “don’t give a shit” (your words not mine) about other people, then you should read them again. Maybe you should take a look at Robert Nozick’s Anarchy State Utopia, or read some Leo Strauss. Strauss would explain Hannity’s position in very straightforward terms: namely, the fact that different lifestyles are equally permissible does not imply that they are equally praiseworthy.

I can also note, Hannity is in no way shape or form a libertarian, he is a conservative republican.

Stephen, you are absolutely right. Hannity is not a full-fledged libertarian, although he has some libertarian views. Conservative Republican is the right label for him.

This Noel Biederman guy is a clown and I hate to say I agree with Hannity on this one… Ouch.

Hello,everybody,the good shoping place,the new season approaching, click in. Let’s facelift bar!
===== http://www.fashionclothe.com ====

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

UGG BOOT $50

Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $33

Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $33

Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $12

New era cap $9

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $18

FREE SHIPPING

People should not promote nor take advantages of the moral weaknesses of another. Vice is vice and no one should support it.

Is it realistic to make a promise “I will love you until death do us part”? Famous Russian writer Leo Tolstoy who is considered an expert in understanding human feelings and relationships between people in general and man and woman in specific, in his novella “The Kreutzer Sonata” said: “To say that you can love one person all your life is just like saying that one candle will continue burning as long as you live”.

Are you married, but not dead? Interested in discreet married dating? Welcome to FindNewPassion.com – premiere dating website for married and singles. Join free – thousands of members around the world are waiting for you.

http://www.FindNewPassion.com