Reply #77

In the discussion thread: Funny how the sexually attractive woman is the villain of the piece [View all]

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 11:32 AM

MineralMan (54,724 posts)

77. Of course not. They're all competent adults, professionally.

They're superannuated adolescents, emotionally. I question their character, in general.

These people, and I mean all of them, believe that their personal lives have nothing to do with their character. They think that nothing they do has any effect on their work. They are incorrect. Poor character involves every aspect of a person, including their professional lives. That is my belief, and it is one I have always held. It has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with trustworthiness. If a person cannot keep a commitment as basic as marriage, why on Earth should I trust that person with anything else? In fact, I do not trust such people. It is good that Petraeus is now unemployed.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

94 replies	Author	Time	Post
Funny how the sexually attractive woman is the villain of the piece [View all]	cthulu2016	Nov 2012	OP
If she broke it off with Petraeus, why was she threatening the other woman... n/t	Lucinda	Nov 2012	#1
Cock blocking?	JVS	Nov 2012	#5
ya. i figure she was too much for the general and he broke it off.	seabeyond	Nov 2012	#7
So you're saying she was the villain?	4th law of robotics	Nov 2012	#26
no. you are saying that. i do not see it anywhere in my post. nt	seabeyond	Nov 2012	#31
No, I asked you to clarify your position	4th law of robotics	Nov 2012	#42
yes. she is a player. and no, she is not in a subservient role. the whole villian thing is	seabeyond	Nov 2012	#45
So they're both villains then?	4th law of robotics	Nov 2012	#54
again... villian is all yours. as i clearly said villian is bullshit. nt	seabeyond	Nov 2012	#62
What are your thoughts on consent given the vast power disparity	4th law of robotics	Nov 2012	#67
i really have no interest discussing my opinion with you. you do things like misrepresent	seabeyond	Nov 2012	#69
I've done nothing of the sort but if you feel you can't	4th law of robotics	Nov 2012	#72
ah. a perfect example why i have no interest what so ever having a conversation with you. thank you	seabeyond	Nov 2012	#73
I think it's because you are not entirely clear on what a conversation is	4th law of robotics	Nov 2012	#74
Heh	ismnotwasm	Nov 2012	#84
ya....	seabeyond	Nov 2012	#86
Nice!	ismnotwasm	Nov 2012	#88
This is my POV as well. n/t	Chan790	Nov 2012	#57
Your sexism knows no bounds, Seabeyond	cthulu2016	Nov 2012	#30
Have you got any links to support that idea?	LisaL	Nov 2012	#36
thanks. lol. so will still sit back and wait, until we actually know. i thought it was still	seabeyond	Nov 2012	#40
no. it isnt about sexism.	seabeyond	Nov 2012	#38
Did you read Petraeus sent her thousands of messages?	flamingdem	Nov 2012	#53
I don't think that info is accurate.	LisaL	Nov 2012	#58
Too much for the General? Or maybe psycho-crazy?	Bake	Nov 2012	#92
My 2 cents: she actually felt protective of Petraeus.	AngryAmish	Nov 2012	#16
How do we know who broke up with who?	LisaL	Nov 2012	#27
Big mistake	nichomachus	Nov 2012	#76
Yep. I don't assume we have any real clue how this will all shake out,	Lucinda	Nov 2012	#80
I can tell you exactly how it will shake out	nichomachus	Nov 2012	#83
what i am seeing, that i find fascinating, is dismissing her to role of mistress. there is nothing	seabeyond	Nov 2012	#2
Really, it's gender-equality in some tawdry way.	JohnnyLib2	Nov 2012	#10
yes. and as i am typing these posts i am lmao that it is me	seabeyond	Nov 2012	#19
He was in the more powerful position	4th law of robotics	Nov 2012	#28
there is not a single damn thing that puts her in a mistress role. that simple. nt	seabeyond	Nov 2012	#44
Oh well if you say so	4th law of robotics	Nov 2012	#47
it would be a fact. not an opinion. so ya. look up mistress. by the very definition that is not	seabeyond	Nov 2012	#49
Mistress (def)	4th law of robotics	Nov 2012	#50
yes. games. then he would equally be a mastress, or a mister'ess. take your pick.	seabeyond	Nov 2012	#61
Sure, if that were a word he would be that.	4th law of robotics	Nov 2012	#66
If their positions were reversed, she would not be refered to as a "mistress".	Kaleva	Nov 2012	#91
Sure are a lot of conservatives sucking on the government teat in this story.	JVS	Nov 2012	#3
Not the villain at all, in my opinion.	MineralMan	Nov 2012	#4
Well, Bush was a party frat guy too..	ananda	Nov 2012	#9
+1	LiberalLoner	Nov 2012	#11
that is crap MM. she has a career, education, connection, and knows what she wants. she is not	seabeyond	Nov 2012	#13
They're all the villains.	MineralMan	Nov 2012	#65
again, i dont catagorize it as villians. but, i do not see a victim. or one playing a subservient,	seabeyond	Nov 2012	#71
Of course not. They're all competent adults, professionally.	MineralMan	Nov 2012	#77
and THIS you and i agree totally on, is the bottomline and you said very well. nt	seabeyond	Nov 2012	#79
Thank you, Mineral Man	Carolina	Nov 2012	#89
Living a short time within the Beltway, it was the only	Eleanors38	Nov 2012	#82
That 'at all' bothers me...is it ok to threaten people by email?	HereSince1628	Nov 2012	#41
They're all villains to one degree or another.	MineralMan	Nov 2012	#68
It's at least an ugly, and very public, mess n/t	HereSince1628	Nov 2012	#81
The "threats" don't appear to have been threats	cthulu2016	Nov 2012	#78
Let's take gender out of it completely.	Avalux	Nov 2012	#6
Well said and the whole thing in a nutshell. n/t	rzemanfl	Nov 2012	#12
Pretty much	4th law of robotics	Nov 2012	#29
She was the one making the THREATS. The THREATS.	Poll_Blind	Nov 2012	#8
Have we seen these threats? (serious question)	cthulu2016	Nov 2012	#22
Who cares?	BeyondGeography	Nov 2012	#14
what do you mean, is this new info about that Allen guy?	Whisp	Nov 2012	#15
All this time I thought it was the general, maybe we read different news sources (nt)	The Straight Story	Nov 2012	#17
You haven't a clue about what is in play here, do you? cthulu2016, there's a lot going on Full	bobthedrummer	Nov 2012	#18
First	Kelvin Mace	Nov 2012	#20
In media terms she is hot. In media terms Katherine Harris was hot.	cthulu2016	Nov 2012	#23
Gosh, this explains why I don't read/watch much	Kelvin Mace	Nov 2012	#93
Probably because she comes off as...not right. The day this	TwilightGardener	Nov 2012	#21
i am going along the same lines as you. nt	seabeyond	Nov 2012	#24
How did you came up with this?	LisaL	Nov 2012	#25
There are multiple villains in this sordid tale. nt	geek tragedy	Nov 2012	#32
OK Here's what I think was going on.	Ganja Ninja	Nov 2012	#33
Don't agree that she was a victim	bongbong	Nov 2012	#34
i agree with you. nt	seabeyond	Nov 2012	#48
She did publicly state her goal was to become National Security Advisor.	Avalux	Nov 2012	#52
That's another interesting brick in the conspiracy tower	bongbong	Nov 2012	#70
No she is not. She is the villaness.	kelliekat44	Nov 2012	#35
Um, that's utterly predictable. See, History of Western Culture for the last several thousand years	Starry Messenger	Nov 2012	#37
Watch current	nadinbrzezinski	Nov 2012	#39
I don't really see what she did wrong-- apart from the affair.	Marr	Nov 2012	#43
Both of them are married.	LisaL	Nov 2012	#46
I didn't know she was married. Yes, that's pretty low-- however,	Marr	Nov 2012	#51
At least his kids are grown.	LisaL	Nov 2012	#55
I don't see how that makes a difference.	Marr	Nov 2012	#59
Really?	LisaL	Nov 2012	#60
that's good	gang	Nov 2012	#56
She was just another tool in the Petraeus myth making machine...	deurbano	Nov 2012	#63
Hey people, life is not a movie!	Springslips	Nov 2012	#64
I think she is 'a' villain, not 'the' villain. There are potentially a lot of villains here.	stevenleser	Nov 2012	#75
"She is certainly not the victim—there doesn't seem to be a victim..."	Carolina	Nov 2012	#85
not to mention	seabeyond	Nov 2012	#87
exactly	Carolina	Nov 2012	#90
It's not funny at all	LadyHawkAZ	Nov 2012	#94

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.