posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 04:28 PM
Originally posted by bobbylove321
I wouldn't want someone to run any sort of an authoritative position if they have family issues.
I'm sure of all the 300 million people in America they can find someone to replace him if need be.
[edit on 27-7-2009 by bobbylove321]
Oh absolutely! No one should be in any position of authority without a totally wholesome family, Just curious as to who decides what's an issue an
and what isn't? And how far the family tie is to be considered relevant: estranged adult children? adult siblings who you haven't spoken to in ten
You see the first problem is that if we start turfing out people because members of their family are doing something instead of the person in
authority, we can pretty much find someone in anyone's family who is.. well let's just say, the kind of person who creates issues for the family.
Sarah Palin's single mom teen daughter pops into mind. I think we should rather focus on Sarah's abilities to get the job done rather than a
decision her daughter made in a moment of hormonally charged teenage passion. Okay, moot since she resigned but like I said, it just sort of popped
into my mind and ricocheted off the inside of my forehead.
The second problem is deciding what constitutes an "issue." I don't see someone being a stripper as an issue. I don't see the governor of South
Carolina's affair as an issue (unless they have added some state sexual responsibilities to the office, you know like stud duties). Should we let
the Mormon's decide (don't count on polygamy being an issue then)? Or perhaps adopt the community standards of San Francisco.
Yep, I think if we go your route, no one will be fit to be in authority. Hmmmm, now that I think of it, maybe you are onto something here......