the DSML should be sorted in chrono order

C, I might actually do that. I sorted it alphabetically, but we've got something in the works... you'll be the first to know when it's done!

C, you had mentioned in an earlier thread that you felt maybe the sexual misconduct tracking was irrelevant and a non-issue with regard to some of the other issues. Or, perhaps that I was being hipocrytical in some earlier comments about fiscal responsibility being of utmost important.

Anyway I'm glad you brought this up, I think it is completely relevant.

For the reasons I've stated... if a man or woman is willing to cheat and lie to the most important thing in his life (his/her family), then that tells me he would have far less concern or hesitation in doing the same to me and my fellow taxpayers.

It can also be said that if a man or woman is willing to cheat on their own family, then it's obvious that the only thing important to him/her is in fact themselves. This also does not bode well in office since we elected them to have OUR best interests in mind (not theirs).

Personally, I think morally it's wrong for someone to cheat on their spouse, but if a politician decides to go down that road when they're no longer in office, that becomes their problem. When they do it IN office, however, it becomes my problem. Unfortunately, the only thing I, we, can do to help prevent this is bring it to the spotlight.

Todd, take a look at the const. prereqs for office & Art. 6 and get back to me.

C, I did look at it. Article 6 in particular mentions the anti-requisit of religion for holding office. Basically, that it is illegal to demand or insist that a person be of a specific religion in order to hold that office. (On a side note, I'm very impressed that you are versed in the constitution, definitely beyond my immediate scope)

So, what I am inferring from you is that you are suggesting perhaps that I am basing my argument on religious morality. Really, it has nothing to do with MY religion, the religion of the office holder, or the requisits for the office. This isn't about moral subjectiveness...

What this is about, is Duvall's own oath to his wife in his own religion... an oath which he has broken. I repeat my previous statement that if he's willing to break his oath to his own God, his own wife and family... then what does that say about what he's willing and capable of doing to his voters?

This isn't about me, and my views, this is about his own promises to his own beliefs, and breaking those promises.

my point is that if enough of his constituents have the same mind as you, this sort will not be elected or reelected.  The constitution does not require anything else but it's prereqs and enough votes.

C, certainly, I agree... they won't be re-elected... it's unlikely that they ever would. Well, except in the state of MA... they seem to be ok with everything from prostitution rings sponsored by the taxpayer to outright murders.

The constitution says nothing about it, certainly, but that doesn't mean that we the people can't be upset about it. There's good reason why the constitution doesn't mention certain qualifications like this. The founding fathers were amazingly intelligent people. Their foresight was beyond anythiing even the great minds of the Greek philiosophers could ever conceive of. They KNEW what they were doing.

All that said, it still doesn't change the fact of the argument that if a politician is willing to do that to his wife, what is he willing to do to you the voter? I don't want someone in office who is willing to stab in the back, the most important thing to them.

and outrage is your perogative; I think there are and if not there need to be ways to catch an office holder when he stabs his country in the back; I think there are church mates, neighbors and family members that influence the stabbing of one's mate in the back

too bad Letterman can count but doesn't count

Well, the thing is, we don't know for a fact that he was "cheating". He recently got married, and I'm not sure what the existing status was, but so far I haven't seen anything that explicitly says he was cheating on anyone. Although I seem to remember he was with his current wife since 1983??? Even though they only got married a year ago (damn liberals).

So, unless they had some kind of deviant agreement, I guess you could say he definitely cheated. But, he's not a politician... I don't think a text document could handle the sexual misconducts of celebrities.

the sleeping with the help part of it is the problem, but yes there is a limit to how much information can be held by one text doc