General Sinclair gets a fine and Liberals are outraged

Truth Detector

Well-known member
Contributor
Im reading a thread started by a Liberal on this story who is outraged by the verdict being a mere slap on the wrist and another Liberal says this:" it's wrong for a married General to have an ongoing affair with a subordinate because he wields undue influence over them.

These are the same fools who declared that Clinton's affair with an intern was ..... wait for it....it's coming....a "PRIVATE matter".

You cannot fabricate the level of clueless hypocrisy it takes to be a Liberal. They lowered the bar and standard a long time ago.

Next they will be declaring an experienced former Governor, CEO and Olympic organizer not fit to be President!!!

:rolleyes:
 
You're an incredibly stupid hack and all you have is the "they did it, too" rebuttal.

Read the UCMJ Article 134. I've dumbed it down for you below.

"The first step in answering this question requires an understanding of the military’s prohibition on adultery. Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice makes criminal the act of adultery when certain legal criteria, known as “elements,” have all been met. There are three distinct elements to the crime of adultery under the UCMJ: first, a Soldier must have had sexual intercourse with someone; second, the Soldier or their sexual partner was married to someone else at the time; and third, that under the circumstances, the conduct of the Soldier was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

The “explanation” portion of Article 134 identifies additional considerations for commanders such as the rank and position of the parties involved, the impact on the military unit, the potential misuse of government time or resources to facilitate the prohibited conduct, as well as whether the adulterous act was accompanied by other violations of the UCMJ."
 
You're an incredibly stupid hack and all you have is the "they did it, too" rebuttal.

Once again you don't get it; but this is typical with you. Liberal hacks, like you, spent every waking moment defending the irresponsible acts of a sitting President who had sex with an intern and then lied under oath denying the fact.

Liberal hacks and their meda allies went out of heir way to impugn Republicans who believed this was not only behavior unbecoming of the Commandef in Cheif, but also punisheable by impeachment.

This isn't a "they did it too" moment. It is pointing the finger at Leftist hypocrites like you who lowered the bar and standards by defending such actions in the first place, then coming onto an Internet forum whining about a General who got slapped with a fine which was more than what Clinton got with Lewinsky.

Read the UCMJ Article 134. I've dumbed it down for you below.

It apparently wasn't dumbed down enough for you to comprehend the irony and hypocrisy of your selective outrage.

It's a military code and it was military justice. You don't like it because you're a hypocrite hyper partisan of epic proportions.

It is the same hypocrisy Democrats illustrate when talking about a Republicans experience to become President. Liberals and Democrats do not have a leg to stand on from here on after they supported the most inexperienced, inept, economically clueless, arrogant, divisive dunce in the history of the office.
 
Meathead. If you want to make this about all adulterous politicians who got away with it, maybe you should start a new thread. This is about military codes of behaviour and those who flouted them, specifically Sinclair.

You think I have selective outrage? Cons have no moral superiority when it comes to adultery. What about Gingrich, Dan Burton, Helen Chenoweth, Henry Hyde and all the other repub hypocrites whom you conveniently neglected to mention? Show me the outrage over them, you incredibly ignorant stooge.
 
Meathead. If you want to make this about all adulterous politicians who got away with it, maybe you should start a new thread. This is about military codes of behaviour and those who flouted them, specifically Sinclair.

You think I have selective outrage? Cons have no moral superiority when it comes to adultery. What about Gingrich, Dan Burton, Helen Chenoweth, Henry Hyde and all the other repub hypocrites whom you conveniently neglected to mention? Show me the outrage over them, you incredibly ignorant stooge.
pull your head out of your liberal ass and try to acknowledge the elitism. yes, there is a military code of behavior, the UCMJ, and a low ranking officer or enlisted person would get the full weight of the law dumped on them, but this GENERAL does not. that is elitism. try bitching about that.
 
pull your head out of your liberal ass and try to acknowledge the elitism. yes, there is a military code of behavior, the UCMJ, and a low ranking officer or enlisted person would get the full weight of the law dumped on them, but this GENERAL does not. that is elitism. try bitching about that.

Pull yours out of your conservative ass, I already said this on the other thread.
 
Meathead. If you want to make this about all adulterous politicians who got away with it, maybe you should start a new thread. This is about military codes of behaviour and those who flouted them, specifically Sinclair.

Dear hyper partisan stuck on selective outrage; Generals, for all intent and purposes, are politicians. The President is the Commander and Chief of the military. Should a sitting President not be held to the same standards as the military or any civilian CEO in a large corporation?

But again, this is not about adulterous politicians as you want to claim, it is about hypocrite Liberals and their amazing double standards and glaring ignorance.

You think I have selective outrage? Cons have no moral superiority when it comes to adultery. What about Gingrich, Dan Burton, Helen Chenoweth, Henry Hyde and all the other repub hypocrites whom you conveniently neglected to mention? Show me the outrage over them, you incredibly ignorant stooge.

Did Newt, Dan Burton, Helen Chenoweth, Henry Hyde and all the other Republucans you want to mention have sex with staff and then try to lie about it? Were their actions, if similar to Clinton's, not reprimanded and resulted in their resignations. Did Republicans attempt to make excuses for their behavior, as Democrats did with Clinton, insisting they should stay in office?

As a typical Liberal stuck on hypocrite, you have a difficult time comprehending the issue, or, you want to deflect away from your glaring hypocrisy and selective partisan outrage by engaging in the never ending circle of stupidity.
 
pull your head out of your liberal ass and try to acknowledge the elitism. yes, there is a military code of behavior, the UCMJ, and a low ranking officer or enlisted person would get the full weight of the law dumped on them, but this GENERAL does not. that is elitism. try bitching about that.

How is this about elitism? Do you have any evidence suggesting that enlisted men or low grade officers are treated differently?

Sinclair had a two year affair with a woman who then reported his behavior for less than honorable reasons; I think the punishment was in line with the facts of the case.

I'm amused when Liberals get their pantaloons in a wad when a General behaves in the same manner as the Democrat politicians they support and then loses his job for it, which is not the case for their politicians.
 
Pull yours out of your conservative ass, I already said this on the other thread.

I hate to tell you this, but he is not a Conservative. He is closer to Liberalism than he is Conservatism. Libertarians usually are similar to Liberals from the social perspective.
 
Dear hyper partisan stuck on selective outrage; Generals, for all intent and purposes, are politicians. The President is the Commander and Chief of the military. Should a sitting President not be held to the same standards as the military or any civilian CEO in a large corporation?

But again, this is not about adulterous politicians as you want to claim, it is about hypocrite Liberals and their amazing double standards and glaring ignorance.

Did Newt, Dan Burton, Helen Chenoweth, Henry Hyde and all the other Republucans you want to mention have sex with staff and then try to lie about it? Were their actions, if similar to Clinton's, not reprimanded and resulted in their resignations. Did Republicans attempt to make excuses for their behavior, as Democrats did with Clinton, insisting they should stay in office?

OMG this is just hilarious, it's not the adultery that matters, it's the lying. Sorry dumb shit, none of these clowns lost their jobs due to infidelity.

Gingrich: “There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate,” the family-values candidate once famously said about his multiple extra-marital affairs."

Chenoweth: "Bill Clinton's behavior has severely rocked this nation and damaged the office of the president. I believe that personal conduct and integrity does matter." Then she admits: "Fourteen years ago, when I was a private citizen and a single woman, I was involved in a relationship that I came to regret, that I'm not proud of. . . . This was in my past, and I'm very sorry," Chenoweth, 60, said in a statement yesterday. "

Burton: "... pleaded for voter support Saturday, a day after the man who questioned President Clinton's integrity admitted that he fathered a child in an extramarital affair. The conservative Republican acknowledged the affair in a statement Friday after days of pressure from media outlets who had been trying to interview the woman and their teenage son.

Hyde: "The statute of limitations has long since passed on my youthful indiscretions," Hyde said in a statement. "Suffice it to say Cherie Snodgrass and I were good friends a long, long time ago.

Barr: "... invoked a legal privilege during his 1985 divorce proceeding, so he could refuse to answer questions on whether he'd cheated on his second wife with the woman who is now his third."[SUP][75][/SUP] In the early 1990s, Barr was photographed at a fundraising event licking whipped cream off a woman.[SUP][76][/SUP]
 
yet you still claimed that this was about sexual assault only?

Now I'm certain you don't actually read what I write. From that thread:

"The man's a pig, no two ways about it. I certainly don't give the woman a pass either but she's not the one being charged. Anyone who enlists in the military knows what he's in for and how rigid the rules are. Yet Sinclair apparently believed he was above the law because he's a general."
 
Now I'm certain you don't actually read what I write. From that thread:

"The man's a pig, no two ways about it. I certainly don't give the woman a pass either but she's not the one being charged. Anyone who enlists in the military knows what he's in for and how rigid the rules are. Yet Sinclair apparently believed he was above the law because he's a general."

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...0-000-fine-no-jail-time&p=1467859#post1467859

I guess that made sense when you were typing it but I don't have a clue what it means. I'm posting about sexual assault and you respond with "elitism"?
 
Back
Top