Otherwise you lose credibility and will be called on your hypocrisy.

You’ve assumed incorrectly again.

I am not a man.

But, I am someone who knows that you identify yourself w/ Sanford’s ho for a reason.

Lili, there is right and wrong in the world, and whether or not Sanford’s ho baked cookies for the kids in her neighborhood, and gaves all her money to the poor is irrelevent. When she slept w/ someone else’s husband she became a ho.

Now, if she repents and never does it again, then she will be a reformed ho. More better. Get it now?

You’re a waste of time, Marsh, as I “assume” you’ve been told many times before.

Look in a mirror, man, you need help for your misogyny.

M-14 2go on June 26, 2009 at 6:39 PM

What other slurs do you like to use?

Sure, you can judge anyone by any of their actions, and you can do it in any tantrum style you like, and you’ll be judged on that. How you were raised shows.

lili on June 27, 2009 at 7:37 PM

LMAO

Translation: “Stop judging her for effing a married man! Or I’ll judge YOU for your posting styles!!!!!”

I’m not morally neutral, but I don’t jump to yell obscenities at a woman I know little about. .

Translation: “I do too know the difference between right and wrong! I know how EVIL it is to speak plainly about a woman who ONLY comitted adultery!!!”

I was raised better than that.

Translation: I am WAAAAAAY better than you!

I’m not assuming anyone is anything; I wasn’t name calling. I think it’s safe to assume though that no one here knows the woman personally,

lili on June 27, 2009 at 7:37 PM

You ASSUMED that when posters identified this woman as a ho that they were doing so “in anger”. You ASSUMED that posters were “tossing without thought” a word that you find objectionable. And you did so “without knowing any of us personally.”

a character sketch would be great

marybel posted the following on another thread…

I saw this on another site (Palmetto Scoop, I think) and thought you’d like it added to the mix. I’m not being facetious:

INTERESTING POST from the Post and Courier

Posted by AnaLaura on June 26, 2009

“See a picture of the home breaker, she had a habit, she has been sleeping around with a powerful (and mafia) man (alberto Fernandez) from the Argentinean government, I know, I live in the US but I was born in Argentina. Heck, many argentineans, including me, we speak 5 languages, but we do not sleep around and we do not break homes.”

“This woman also slept around with the local “Ted Turner” of Buenos Aires, Daniel Haddad hired her as an informal commentator even if she had no formal training. She broke his marriage too, he had 4 or 5 kids, and when their affair came to light she was sent by his news channel to cover AFGHANISTAN, maybe Haddad’s wife ask him to do that, to get rid of this whore.

“She is a jaded divorcee and a gold-digger, a climber. Sorry mr Sanford, she “loved” you as much as she loved other “strong” men, not afraid to get close to mafia, in Argentina…”

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/jun/26/mystery_woman_vigorous_athletic87333/

*****************************************************************

Video: Maria Belen Chapur
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/747/story/800761.html

*****************************************************************

LOL
You assume many things about posters here, while telling them not to assume things about Sanford’s whore.

Marsh on June 27, 2009 at 9:48 AM

I’m not assuming anyone is anything; I wasn’t name calling. I think it’s safe to assume though that no one here knows the woman personally, and if anyone does, a character sketch would be great.

Because we “don’t know this woman” we can’t judge her actions? Sorry, but most of us weren’t raised to be so morally neutral. I agree that “whore” is not appropriate unless she was taking cash or drugs for sex. How about “loose”, “homewrecking tramp” or “slut”?

SKYFOX on June 27, 2009 at 9:30 AM

Sure, you can judge anyone by any of their actions, and you can do it in any tantrum style you like, and you’ll be judged on that. How you were raised shows.

I’m not morally neutral, but I don’t jump to yell obscenities at a woman I know little about. I was raised better than that.

And if that’s true, then Palin – who airs her flaws and scandals out on the line for everyone to see – may be the last woman standing that he can’t get to. because one by one, we are going to watch the leaks drip drip drip until the party is completely demoralized and there is no one left with the stature to face down this jerk — except for Palin. Honesty is the best policy.

Just a thought.

Saw Transformers. Awesome movie. I highly recommend – especially the part where they subtly hint that Obama is a complete douchebag.

You don’t know this woman. You’ve never met her. You’re assuming things you can’t know, and when you toss words on assumption, in anger at a woman you don’t even know and never will, that’s tossing lightly, tossing without thought.

“Whore”, like “pimp”, has taken on different meanings, been used incorrectly and accepted, but for some of us, it’s not a word to toss without thought.

lili on June 27, 2009 at 8:59 AM

LOL

You assume many things about posters here, while telling them not to assume things about Sanford’s whore.

Because we “don’t know this woman” we can’t judge her actions? Sorry, but most of us weren’t raised to be so morally neutral. I agree that “whore” is not appropriate unless she was taking cash or drugs for sex. How about “loose”, “homewrecking tramp” or “slut”?

Using the word “whore” to describe a woman who deliberately desecrates a marriage and family isn’t exactly using the word “lightly”. It’s not like Miss Thing didn’t know she was doing a married guy.

Murf76 on June 26, 2009 at 8:18 PM

You don’t know this woman. You’ve never met her. You’re assuming things you can’t know, and when you toss words on assumption, in anger at a woman you don’t even know and never will, that’s tossing lightly, tossing without thought.

“Whore”, like “pimp”, has taken on different meanings, been used incorrectly and accepted, but for some of us, it’s not a word to toss without thought.

Driefromseattle on June 27, 2009 at 4:09 AM

Precisely. He’s untrustworthy. If he was unhappy in his marriage, so be it, none of my business, he should have done the grown up thing and separated formally not made up a lie about hiking and soul-searching before jaunting off to Argentina for sex. If he is an honest man with nothing to hide, why be so damn sneaky.

Even if he was going to be an adulterer, why be a childish crybaby about it when you get caught?

I do understand old Maria’s rationale, at 43 the likelihood is that this was her last chance to go for the headlines or snag a husband of note. Needless to say she was out for herself. I wonder, being a former journalist and all, if she did not press for the friendship to turn into more in order to disgrace Sanford and help “the one”? Anybody know anything about her politics?

It’s not the affair itself that’s troublesome, though. It’s that someone, if he hadn’t been caught, could have used the affair as blackmail leverage against him–and still can. Someone posted earlier about pics possibly appearing in the tabloids. I wonder if the “chica” in Argentina is going to ask for money or political favors to keep said pics out of sight? And then there is the secrecy factor and the apparent total disregard for his responsibilities to those who elected him to office and those with whom he daily works. Were I one of his electorate, I would be pushing for a recall election or something. A man who sneaks, deceives, and lies his way OUT OF THE COUNTRY for a roll in the hay is NOT to be trusted with state secrets.

How about next time we hear someone speak on family values and such, let’s ask them to define what they are talking about–in depth! Just so we know whether or not we’re on the same page.

Many factors can go into cheating that we know nothing about in their situation.

It may surprise you to know that many people who commit adultery say they were happily married.

Sanford placed the blame for the affair squarely on his shoulders.

Many people have poor boundaries. Seems that was true in Sanford’s case. Which is why I think they may recover their marriage.

I don’t view divorce lightly. I would just say that in a marriage each partner should strive to fulfill the needs of the other,

Absolutely.

and if it is brought to light that those needs aren’t being fulfilled and one partner continues to not meet

If this is the sitch you find yourself in, pick up His Needs, Her Needs You don’t even have to read it, but leave it around your house. Your wife will. And it may help her to understand how important sexual fullfillment is to you.

but I hate to say there have been times when it might not have taken much pushing, and so mabe I just have a bit more understanding why some would cross the line.

It’s not surprised how many men have expressed similar thoughts about this on HA. I hope all the wives on here are listening up.

A thoughtful and accurate response. I agree.
Having a firm belief in the bible and being a person who belives strongly regarding laws and rules I don’t view divorce lightly. I would just say that in a marriage each partner should strive to fulfill the needs of the other, and if it is brought to light that those needs aren’t being fulfilled and one partner continues to not meet those needs then they can’t be too surprised when the other finds someone who will. I don’t think that makes the one that cheats evil or right, they are just people. I don’t feel it diqualifies them from their job. I can tell you that I have never cheated on my spouse or even past girlfriends, but I hate to say there have been times when it might not have taken much pushing, and so mabe I just have a bit more understanding why some would cross the line.

I am glad there are so many righteous persons that grace this blog. Many factors can go into cheating that we know nothing about in their situation. And for those who think sex is not important in a marriage, well I would say the reason I don’t marry my friends is cause I don’t intend on having sex with them unlike the reason I married my wife. Mabe someone can explain to me the value of a marriage were one spouse has chosen to be celibate; thereby, forcing the other spouse to be celibate?

mbrans on June 27, 2009 at 12:11 AM

I’m going to repost what I said about this subject on another thread…

I think it is terribly cruel for a wife to w/hold sex from her husband. I often wonder how she would feel if her husband only talked to her once a week. Or once every other week. I dare say most women would not tolerate it from their husbands. And yet, they will w/hold sex from their husbands for long spans of time w/o blinking an eye.

In my opinion no less harm is done to a marriage by a spouse that with holds than a spouse that cheats.

What if your wife is w/holding sex from you AND she cheats?

It happens. All too often.

This culture poo poos men’s needs. Women not only refuse to meet their husband’s most important emotional need, but they will often SHAME him for having it! “Oh, THAT’S ALL YOU’RE interested in?” “Your such a pervert!

OUTRAGEOUS!

I wonder what those wives would say if their husbands quit their jobs and simply said, “I don’t FEEL like working today…or tomorrow….or the next week…”

And when she complained about needing money, what if he said, “Is THAT all you want me for? A pay check?”

Whatever problems a couple has, they ought to try to resolve them INSIDE their marriage, not outside of it.

If they can’t be resolved then D.

Murf76 on June 26, 2009 at 8:18 PM

Isn’t it revealing how some people will get bent over a word that accurately describes what a person has become, but not so much over the act itself?

When a mirror is held up, those who don’t like what they see cry foul.

Happens every time.