What I was trying to get at was whether Mr. Comey believes that any of his interactions with the president rise to the level of obstruction of justice. In the case of Secretary Clinton’s emails, Mr. Comey was willing to step beyond his role as an investigator and state his belief about what ‘no reasonable prosecutor’ would conclude about the evidence. I wanted Mr. Comey to apply the same approach to the key question surrounding his interactions with President Trump — whether or not the president’s conduct constitutes obstruction of justice,” McCain said in the statement.

This is what I got from it but I was forgiving of his way of making this point.

The double standard but yes he was not in his prime there lol

My point is that many of these protesters have a double standard. They're actually defending intolerance - people like Linda Sarsour, who block honest discussion from actual libertarians like Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Yeah OK reading that back to myself, my point was far from clear in the OP.

Quote from the YT comments I found myself agreeing with:

"Here's a few things the US forces aren't doing: Burning people alive for witchcraft, keeping sex slaves, beheading journalists, kidnapping people for ransom, forcing 1/2 of the population to cover their bodies and effectively live in bags, denying education to women, throwing homosexuals off buildings, burying people so only their head is exposed and stoning them for adultery, suicide bombing their own children to get to one US soldier, denying that the holocaust existed, and the list goes on. All of the horrible things I've listed are however practiced by the people that the US, and allied nations are fighting. So my questions are:1. Why are we holding the US army to such a high moral standard, yet we give a free pass to enemies, who are doing far, far, far worse, with the only thing stopping them from doing even worse being that they aren't as well equipped or trained as the US armed forces. If we are appalled at what the allied armies are doing, then we should be doubly appalled at what the other side is doing. Otherwise we have a double standard. 2.Why did this video single out the US? When quite a lot of the western world is involved in these conflicts. This is why I stopped being a leftie. Because the left is regressing. The leftists are targeting the high end of morality instead of trying to establishing a baseline of ethical behavior which to work from."

Calling the double standard police, calling the double standard police -- Stephen Fry made fun of Scottish accents at the end of this video!!! I think you should make a big deal out of this. For shame. And it's at the top of the Videosift Top Ten! *gasp*

So, I suppose thats not racist? Next time an asian clip is uploaded I can use stereotypical chingrish to comment and that wont be racist either. Love these double standards

I think it is stupid to whine about the email leaks "unfairly" damaging Hillary's campaign.

The DNC could have easily avoided the fallout / resignations / etc. by simply not doing shady, underhanded shit. When you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, don't bitch about who snitched on you -- a better response would be to learn that you can't get caught if you don't do anything wrong.


Sorta reminds me of earlier in the campaign when Hillary complained that it was unfair for people to want to see her transcripts of paid speeches given to Wall Street banks. She said that other candidates weren't expected to do that, so it was an unfair double standard. Bernie Sanders response was great -- he said he'd be 100% willing to hand over any of his transcripts, except for one minor problem: he never made any paid speeches to Wall Street banks.


With regards to Wikileaks, I have zero problems with how they handled things and don't care at all who their source was -- Russia, some other very biased source with a clear agenda to damage Hillary, whatever. The only thing that matters is, are the emails true / legit? I haven't heard anyone suggest that they aren't; just bitching about it being "unfair" that all the dirt is on Hillary and the DNC.

Wikileaks relies on sources. You know, leakers. I'm confident that if they had dirt on Trump or any other candidate, they'd put it out there. But Wikileaks can't make candidates or parties do questionable shit, and even when candidates or parties do do questionable shit, they still need someone to catch them and then leak the information to Wikileaks.

Sometimes, if they don't have any dirt on somebody, it might be because there isn't any dirt to be had... Just like Sanders' transcripts of Wall Street speeches.

She really nails the Double Standard idea. Excellent.

It's funny our culture of ultra violence, but raping Marge is out of the question. Lol. Not that I would watch it if it had it in it, but that is the double standard we have.

No it's not right, and while my immediate response to a gender reversal in this situation might be disgust I find that having thought about it over the years makes me more aware of the double standard it implies.
I agree that prohibitions against sex between minors and adults are right and necessary; but I can't help but wonder if we called it something that didn't involve the word rape if it would change how we think about it. Rape is a very incendiary word and I don't think it always accurately describes what is really going on in these situations. I understand that teens can't give consent under the law, but teens occupy a place where they are neither children or adults and it seems disingenuous to assume that they are utterly incapable of acting on their own.
I haven't seen the movie but 'The Diary of a Teenage Girl' (or read the graphic novel, or seen the play for that matter) but it sounds like it talks about the issue without the usual hysterics.
http://www.npr.org/2015/08/13/431997207/a-diary-unlocked-a-teenage-coming-of-age-story-put-on-film
I would also agree with @lucky760, you didn't know that kid or any of the other people involved but you'll slap the victim label on him and expect it to stick, whether it's the truth or not.

I don't remember much about the Anthony Weiner story but if the pics he sent were unsolicited (which may have been the case) then that might put it into different territory than if she asked him to send her pictures of his cock.
Of course if could also be because Weiner was a guy, and we still live with the double standard that no matter what happens a guy's job is to suck it up and take it like a man. And men are probably worse with each other about it in the same way that women will engage in merciless slut shaming amongst each other.

LMAO. Wow the double-standard is strong with this one.


So you'll defend this - in your own words - victim, of police harassment..

And even openly question & scold the officer as WORTHLESS..

For trying to bring trumped up Trepassing charges against him..

However, in the Arizona Iced Tea scenario..

A scenario which is nearly almost precisely the same..

You'll take the exact OPPOSITE stance..

And defend the clearly UNCONSTITUTIONALLY wrong officer..

And deride the victim for his objection to an illegal detention, search & seizure and arrest?

Please explain yourself, Lantern

Please explain why you'd treat - basically the same situation - in two vastly different ways.

*grabs popcorn*

Holy heck. I haven't been active on this site in like 3 years.!

But somehow I ended up clicking thru the "Cake-day" notification and what do I see?

Mind-numbing denialism & illogical double standards.

Was it Mark Twain who say NOT to argue with stupid people, because they'll "drag you down to their level & beat you with experience"?

Screw it, the cognitive dissonance is too much to bear.

So now I'm back [from outer & inner space] to deliver this:

Stop arguing about which corrupt body of political hacks are "better".

Focus on the fact the BOTH Bush Obama and all presidents after will continue to erode any protections you hold dear.

No matter which political ideology you subscribe to.
Sheesh!

The left cries 'bigot' every time some ethnic person on the left gets criticized, but they slam every ethnic person on the right, such as Jindal or West w/o fear of being called a 'bigot'.

Just another illogical double standard.

Obama is going to have a very hard time in the 'legacy' department.

i am with @ChaosEngine on this one.

his "short skirt" analogy,from an absolute moral standpoint is correct.

so i am reading most of these comments in the abstract:"while it is a shame how you were raped and those men are deplorable and vicious...you REALLY should not have gone out wearing that skirt".

and as @entr0py noted,it comes across as mysoginistic.

was that the intent?
probably not,but it does explain chaos becoming so frustrated with this thread.something that should be self-evident is being buried under good intentions and a healthy dose of double standards.

as for this being her "revenge"...
i dont see it as revenge but rather as her recapturing her dignity and self-determination.

basically..fuck the haters.
and on that note i say "well played miss holten,well played".

But society tells a man, enshrined in law and tradition, that if he does not want to be forced into wage-slavery for 18 years of an unwanted child's life, he should not have had sex with the girl in the first place. It makes women victims of sex, not equal participants, fully capable and fully responsible. The woman chooses to have, abort, abandon or offer for adoption. The man does not have any choice over that, including if he wants to keep and she does not.

And that double standard stems from the inherent sexist bias that men are the big strong responsible ones, and women need protecting and helping. I keep seeing Emma Watson's face plastered all over facebook with "He For She" gash-tagged. He for she? HE... for SHE? She does not need he, and the campaign ridiculously reinforces the male hyper-responsibility and female hypo-responsibility that has led us to this system which is sexist to both males and females. If anything, we need we, but wee-wee probably isn't a good tag-line.

So why did i bring sexism up? Well, either you can't tell people to act a certain way if they don't want consequences, or you can.... and we as a society do not have a standard to use, because we legally force fathers into wage-slavery at the whim of the mother and tell him exactly that. Is it any surprise men are using the same unfair argument by which they can be and are financially crippled? That's the heart of the debate imo; society raises men to be fully responsible for their actions, but raises women not to be (which as we see is sexist and unfair to both).

Only one thing is certain - equality of the sexes is important for both sexes. Because when society is willing to accept that women can be responsible for themselves, men will not be held responsible for a woman's decision to have a child. And then maybe men will stop using the argument which they must bow to by law.

Pre-emptive edit:
I will never let it be said that the views expressed herein are sexist, nor that i am sexist. I am a huge proponent of the fact that women are gifted with the same cognitive potential as men, and that any physiological differences are irrelevant in the modern world. But equality comes with a price - and that price is real equality. I am not encouraging irresponsible male behaviour... i am stating, loud and proud, as a feminist.. that women should be allowed to be fully responsible for their choices and actions, because i believe them to be fully capable of it.