BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

jps

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:23:44 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:18:04 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:07:05 -0400, HK wrote:

Lu Powell wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Lu Powell wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:51:29 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 21:46:52 -0400, "Lu Powell"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
news On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 19:06:17 -0400, "Lu Powell"

wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
Lu Powell wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Ensign paid $96k to mistress's family
snipped for brevity

Thus, long lists of Republicans/Democrats don't matter to me. It's the
preaching of Republican hypocrites on matters sexual I'm discussing.

If a Republican or Republicans subscribe to a particular set of moral
strictures, tenets, precepts, and disapprobations, then those persons
have a system by which a violator of those strictures can be judged
for having done so. If there is no value system, there can be no
condemnation. If one can condemn hypocrisy, one has a value system
and is summarily evaluated by that same system. To accuse Republicans
of hypocrisy is itself a hypocrisy. No Republican can take another
Republican to task if the other has crossed the ethical line that
Republicans generally adhere to.

Correction: No Republican can take another Republican to task if
there is no ethical line (such as the moral suasion that Republicans
generally adhere to) for the other to cross.

You're arguing on behalf of that ethical line, right?

It just so happens that for many candidates drawing that ethical line
is a source for money and votes.

It's not the ethical line that they're being castigated for, it's the
cynical use of it for advantage and profit.

Right?