More Republican Family Values
HK
By: Manu Raju
Politico
July 9, 2009 03:11 PM EST
U.S. Sen. John Ensign's attorney acknowledged Thursday that the Nevada
Republican's parents paid nearly $100,000 to the family of his mistress
around the time she and her husband left his staff in April 2008.
Paul Coggins, Ensign's attorney, said in a statement that the senator
gave Doug Hampton, Cindy Hampton and their two children gifts worth
$96,000 and that "each gift was limited to $12,000."
"The payments were made as gifts, accepted as gifts and complied with
tax rules governing gifts," Coggins said.
Coggins said that after Ensign told his parents about his affair with
Cindy Hampton � who was an then a campaign aide � the senator's parents
"decided to make the gifts out of concern for the well-being of longtime
family friends during a difficult time.
"The gifts are consistent with a pattern of generosity by the Ensign
family to the Hamptons and others."
Ensign's attorney said that none of the gifts came from campaign or
official funds and were not related to his official duties, saying that
he complied with all ethics laws.
His disclosure comes as the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility
and Ethics in Washington called on the Justice Department to investigate
potential criminal wrongdoing of Ensign reportedly giving Cindy Hampton
more than $25,000 in a severance package. The group says that under
federal law, failing to report contributions of more than $25,000 can
result in five years in jail.
- - -
Hehehe...it just goes on and on for these family value Republicans.
Lu Powell
"HK" <payer...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
news:zYednZ14Q4VDycvX...@earthlink.com...
Neil Goldschmidt � Democrat � Oregon governor. Admitted to having an illegal
sexual relationship with a 14-year-old teenager while he was serving as
Mayor of Portland.
Barney Frank � Democrat � U.S. Representative from Massachusetts. Admitted
to having paid Stephen L. Gobie, a male prostitute, for sex and subsequently
hiring Gobie as his personal assistant. Gobie used the congressman�s
Washington apartment for prostitution.
Former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey resigned his office and
publically admitted his relationship with his croney/lover Golan Cipel who
resigned from a $100,000/yr job created by McGreevey.
Edward Kennedy � Democrat � U. S. Senator from Massachusetts. Pleaded guilty
to leaving the scene of an accident, after his car plunged off a bridge on
Chappaquiddick Island killing passenger Mary Jo Kopechne.
Hehehe...it just goes on and on and on and on....
HK
You don't get it, lu-ser. It is the Republicans who stand on the pile of
crap mountain called "family values," proclaim themselves virtuous, and
tell others they, too, should lead "proper" lives. That's why these
wonderful stories of Republican "misbehaving" has such a long half-life,
as it were.
Vitter, Ensign, Sanford, Craig - all right-wingers, all "family values"
bullshitters, all hypocrites.
Try again...and see if your peabrain can figure it all out, eh?
jps
>Coggins said that after Ensign told his parents about his affair with
>Cindy Hampton � who was an then a campaign aide � the senator's parents
>"decided to make the gifts out of concern for the well-being of longtime
>family friends during a difficult time.
Yes, that's what my family does too. We don't send a card or invite
them for dinner. We give money.
Family *values* indeed.
What's the value or your family?
HK
> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:36:46 -0400, HK <payer...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Coggins said that after Ensign told his parents about his affair with
>> family friends during a difficult time.
>
> Yes, that's what my family does too. We don't send a card or invite
> them for dinner. We give money.
>
> Family *values* indeed.
>
> What's the value or your family?
You know what really must burn the Republi-scum?
The political family with the strongest family values now occupies the
white house...a husband and wife devoted to each other and their kids,
and not a breath of sexual scandal.
Even worse for the Republi-scum...the Obamas are not overtly religious.
Lu Powell
You are the one that doesn't get it. For every Republican scandal, there are
myriad demo scandals. The "family values" argument is a straw dog that you
use to justify your muckraking. You post one about Republicans, I'll post
one or more about Democrats. Fair enough? Family values be damned. That's
the democratic way.
WAFA
HK
Whoosh.
D.Duck
> jps wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:36:46 -0400, HK <payer...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Coggins said that after Ensign told his parents about his affair with
>>> family friends during a difficult time.
>>
>> Yes, that's what my family does too. We don't send a card or invite
>> them for dinner. We give money.
>>
>> Family *values* indeed.
>>
>> What's the value or your family?
>
>
> You know what really must burn the Republi-scum?
>
> The political family with the strongest family values now occupies the
> white house...a husband and wife devoted to each other and their kids, and
> not a breath of sexual scandal.
>
> Even worse for the Republi-scum...the Obamas are not overtly religious.
And smokes like a chimney.
D K
So what about the "It takes a village" bullshit, WAFA?
GC Boater
> Hehehe...it just goes on and on for these family value Republicans.
Yessiree Krausie. Speaking of family values, jus' wondering why your
name isn't on the deed to home you live in? Your wifelet deem you to
be deficient in "family values?"
Vic Smith
(snipped stuff about Ensign)
You aren't too sharp.
You haven't posted a link to a pic of Cindy Hampton.
She bears a resemblance to somebody you are obsessed with.
I guess that "can't see the forest for the trees" saw has some
validity.
--Vic
jps
wrote:
>
>"HK" <payer...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
>news:QvOdnf5KXrTgx8vX...@earthlink.com...
>> Lu Powell wrote:
>>>
>>> "HK" <payer...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
>>> news:zYednZ14Q4VDycvX...@earthlink.com...
>>>> Ensign paid $96k to mistress's family
>>>> By: Manu Raju
>>>> Politico
>>>> July 9, 2009 03:11 PM EST
>>>>
>>>> U.S. Sen. John Ensign's attorney acknowledged Thursday that the Nevada
>>>> Republican's parents paid nearly $100,000 to the family of his mistress
>>>> around the time she and her husband left his staff in April 2008.
>>>>
>>>> Paul Coggins, Ensign's attorney, said in a statement that the senator
>>>> gave Doug Hampton, Cindy Hampton and their two children gifts worth
>>>> $96,000 and that "each gift was limited to $12,000."
>>>>
>>>> "The payments were made as gifts, accepted as gifts and complied with
>>>> tax rules governing gifts," Coggins said.
>>>>
>>>> Coggins said that after Ensign told his parents about his affair with
>>>> Cindy Hampton � who was an then a campaign aide � the senator's parents
>>>> "decided to make the gifts out of concern for the well-being of longtime
>>>> family friends during a difficult time.
>>>>
>>>> "The gifts are consistent with a pattern of generosity by the Ensign
>>>> family to the Hamptons and others."
>>>>
>>>> Ensign's attorney said that none of the gifts came from campaign or
>>>> official funds and were not related to his official duties, saying that
>>>> he complied with all ethics laws.
>>>>
>>>> His disclosure comes as the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility
>>>> and Ethics in Washington called on the Justice Department to investigate
>>>> potential criminal wrongdoing of Ensign reportedly giving Cindy Hampton
>>>> more than $25,000 in a severance package. The group says that under
>>>> federal law, failing to report contributions of more than $25,000 can
>>>> result in five years in jail.
>>>>
>>>> - - -
>>>>
>>>> Hehehe...it just goes on and on for these family value Republicans.
>>>
>>>
>>> Neil Goldschmidt � Democrat � Oregon governor. Admitted to having an
>>> illegal sexual relationship with a 14-year-old teenager while he was
>>> serving as Mayor of Portland.
>>>
>>> Barney Frank � Democrat � U.S. Representative from Massachusetts.
>>> Admitted to having paid Stephen L. Gobie, a male prostitute, for sex and
>>> subsequently hiring Gobie as his personal assistant. Gobie used the
>>> congressman�s Washington apartment for prostitution.
>>>
>>> Former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey resigned his office and
>>> publically admitted his relationship with his croney/lover Golan Cipel
>>> who resigned from a $100,000/yr job created by McGreevey.
>>>
>>> Edward Kennedy � Democrat � U. S. Senator from Massachusetts. Pleaded
>>> guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, after his car plunged off a
>>> bridge on Chappaquiddick Island killing passenger Mary Jo Kopechne.
>>>
>>> Hehehe...it just goes on and on and on and on....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> You don't get it, lu-ser. It is the Republicans who stand on the pile of
>> crap mountain called "family values," proclaim themselves virtuous, and
>> tell others they, too, should lead "proper" lives. That's why these
>> wonderful stories of Republican "misbehaving" has such a long half-life,
>> as it were.
>>
>> Vitter, Ensign, Sanford, Craig - all right-wingers, all "family values"
>> bullshitters, all hypocrites.
>>
>> Try again...and see if your peabrain can figure it all out, eh?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>You are the one that doesn't get it. For every Republican scandal, there are
>myriad demo scandals. The "family values" argument is a straw dog that you
>use to justify your muckraking. You post one about Republicans, I'll post
>one or more about Democrats. Fair enough? Family values be damned. That's
>the democratic way.
There are as many republican scandals each year as there are dem
scandals per presidential term.
Foley - Gay perv hitting on congressional pages
Cunningham - On the take personally
Craig - Gay perv into public bathroom sex
Gannon - Gay perv/prostitute
Abramoff - Influence peddler
Bob May - Congressman, Abramoff assoc. in jail
Gonzales - Asswipe liar, destroyer of constitution
Vitter - Family values prostitute junkie "powder my ass"
Sanford - Family values philanderer, run at the mouth liar
Ensign - Family values philanderer and bribery specialist
Libby - Liar and scumbag
Allen - Bigot caught red-handed
DeLay - Scum bag caught shifting funds illegally
Bob Allen - Offered burly cop $20 to blow him
Glen Murphy - Young Rep Chair blew unconsenting overnight guest
Rick Renzi - Extortion, fraud, money laundering
Richard Curtis - Soliciting gay sex
John Dolittle - Representative, numerous ties to Abramoff
Ted Stevens - Forgot to mention $100,000 gift house renovation
Sarah Palin - Expensegate, troopergate, quittergate
John McCain - Picked Palin, faux-suspended campaign
This is without working at it.
Lu Powell
"jps" <tr...@thedump.com> wrote in message
news:o81d55d24gia95ol3...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 19:06:17 -0400, "Lu Powell" <lupo...@komkast.kom>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"HK" <payer...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
>>news:QvOdnf5KXrTgx8vX...@earthlink.com...
>>> Lu Powell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "HK" <payer...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:zYednZ14Q4VDycvX...@earthlink.com...
>>>>> Ensign paid $96k to mistress's family
>>>>> By: Manu Raju
>>>>> Politico
>>>>> July 9, 2009 03:11 PM EST
>>>>>
>>>>> U.S. Sen. John Ensign's attorney acknowledged Thursday that the Nevada
>>>>> Republican's parents paid nearly $100,000 to the family of his
>>>>> mistress
>>>>> around the time she and her husband left his staff in April 2008.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul Coggins, Ensign's attorney, said in a statement that the senator
>>>>> gave Doug Hampton, Cindy Hampton and their two children gifts worth
>>>>> $96,000 and that "each gift was limited to $12,000."
>>>>>
>>>>> "The payments were made as gifts, accepted as gifts and complied with
>>>>> tax rules governing gifts," Coggins said.
>>>>>
>>>>> Coggins said that after Ensign told his parents about his affair with
>>>>> "decided to make the gifts out of concern for the well-being of
>>>>> longtime
>>>>> family friends during a difficult time.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The gifts are consistent with a pattern of generosity by the Ensign
>>>>> family to the Hamptons and others."
>>>>>
>>>>> Ensign's attorney said that none of the gifts came from campaign or
>>>>> official funds and were not related to his official duties, saying
>>>>> that
>>>>> he complied with all ethics laws.
>>>>>
>>>>> His disclosure comes as the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility
>>>>> and Ethics in Washington called on the Justice Department to
>>>>> investigate
>>>>> potential criminal wrongdoing of Ensign reportedly giving Cindy
>>>>> Hampton
>>>>> more than $25,000 in a severance package. The group says that under
>>>>> federal law, failing to report contributions of more than $25,000 can
>>>>> result in five years in jail.
>>>>>
>>>>> - - -
>>>>>
>>>>> Hehehe...it just goes on and on for these family value Republicans.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> illegal sexual relationship with a 14-year-old teenager while he was
>>>> serving as Mayor of Portland.
>>>>
>>>> Admitted to having paid Stephen L. Gobie, a male prostitute, for sex
>>>> and
>>>> subsequently hiring Gobie as his personal assistant. Gobie used the
>>>> congressman's Washington apartment for prostitution.
>>>>
>>>> Former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey resigned his office and
>>>> publically admitted his relationship with his croney/lover Golan Cipel
>>>> who resigned from a $100,000/yr job created by McGreevey.
>>>>
You are right. Thanks for making my point. Any Google search turns up Dem.
and Rep. scandals galore. Harry seems to think hypocritical conservatives
are somehow more immoral or corrupt than guys like Ted Kennedy, Barney
Frank, Wm. Jefferson, Bill ("I did not have sex with that woman") Clinton et
al.
The trite old "family values" rationale doesn't hold water. In the end, it's
a straw dog.
He keeps beating a dead horse, much to his discredit.
"Let him without sin...." Surely you know the rest.
HK
You still don't get it, Lu-ser.
GC Boater
> You still don't get it, Lu-ser.
Lawd God, Krausie, you're the one who "still don't get it." It's YOUR
children who have disowned you. Why?
jps
wrote:
Hmmmm...
My point was that there are far more Republican scandals.
Your scale is 40 years, mine is 4.
D.Duck
*Any* number of scandals on either side is unacceptable.
jps
Surely.
But that wasn't my point. My point is the ratio between the parties.
Lu Powell
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:51:29 -0400, "D.Duck" <D...@ld.duck> wrote:
>
>>
>>"jps" <tr...@thedump.com> wrote in message
>>news:g0id555eiph9n0hm0...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 21:46:52 -0400, "Lu Powell" <lupo...@komkast.kom>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"jps" <tr...@thedump.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:o81d55d24gia95ol3...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 19:06:17 -0400, "Lu Powell" <lupo...@komkast.kom>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"HK" <payer...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:QvOdnf5KXrTgx8vX...@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>> Lu Powell wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "HK" <payer...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:zYednZ14Q4VDycvX...@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>> Ensign paid $96k to mistress's family
> But that wasn't my point. My point is the ratio between the parties.
Oh, I see. I'll give you 20 sex deviate conservatives for 10 bribe-taking,
womanizing, gay prostituting liberals. Neither side has a claim on proper
behavior. To pretend otherwise is foolish.
Don't bother to reply. We've thrashed this thread to the point of
ridiculousness.
HK
>
> "jps" <tr...@thedump.com> wrote in message
> news:hmld55t471ne50gbf...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:51:29 -0400, "D.Duck" <D...@ld.duck> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "jps" <tr...@thedump.com> wrote in message
>>> news:g0id555eiph9n0hm0...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 21:46:52 -0400, "Lu Powell" <lupo...@komkast.kom>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "jps" <tr...@thedump.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:o81d55d24gia95ol3...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 19:06:17 -0400, "Lu Powell" <lupo...@komkast.kom>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "HK" <payer...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:QvOdnf5KXrTgx8vX...@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>> Lu Powell wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "HK" <payer...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:zYednZ14Q4VDycvX...@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>> Ensign paid $96k to mistress's family
>
>> But that wasn't my point. My point is the ratio between the parties.
>
> Oh, I see. I'll give you 20 sex deviate conservatives for 10
> bribe-taking, womanizing, gay prostituting liberals. Neither side has a
> claim on proper behavior. To pretend otherwise is foolish.
>
> Don't bother to reply. We've thrashed this thread to the point of
> ridiculousness.
Naw.
Who is going to be the next hypocritical right-wing politician or
preacher who tells us to behave sexually while he isn't?
Lu Powell
How about the Rev. Jesse Jackson, erstwhile presidential candidate, general
gadfly, and father of the Democratic Congressman from Illinois?
HK
I wasn't aware that Jackson has been out in the public lately,
condemning the lack of marital morality among national politicians while
following a different set of rules himself.
You still don't get it, Lu-ser. I don't give a damn who Republican
politicians fuck on a personal basis. It's their penchant for
castigating others for behaving as they do sexually that I find
hypocritical...and so very Republican.
Thus, long lists of Republicans/Democrats don't matter to me. It's the
preaching of Republican hypocrites on matters sexual I'm discussing.
the1tha...@fish.net
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. The argument decrying Republican
hypocrisy is specious at best.
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
jpj...@psbnewton.com
>On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:07:05 -0400, HK <payer...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>
>>Lu Powell wrote:
>>>
>>> "HK" <payer...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
>>> news:9Jqdnas1f4rN2crX...@earthlink.com...
>>>> Lu Powell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "jps" <tr...@thedump.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hmld55t471ne50gbf...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:51:29 -0400, "D.Duck" <D...@ld.duck> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "jps" <tr...@thedump.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:g0id555eiph9n0hm0...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 21:46:52 -0400, "Lu Powell" <lupo...@komkast.kom>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "jps" <tr...@thedump.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:o81d55d24gia95ol3...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 19:06:17 -0400, "Lu Powell"
>>>>>>>>>> <lupo...@komkast.kom>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "HK" <payer...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:QvOdnf5KXrTgx8vX...@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lu Powell wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "HK" <payer...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:zYednZ14Q4VDycvX...@earthlink.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
jps
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?
D
You know that is true, right?
Calif Bill
Sort of like a President and Congress that wants to make the military smoke
free, but not Legislative Branch people or Executive Branch people?
Liberals with a government health plan for the masses, but exempt
themselves? That is HYPOCRITICAL!
the1tha...@fish.net
>On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:23:44 -0500, jpj...@psbnewton.com wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:18:04 -0500, the1tha...@fish.net wrote:
>>
<<Refer to previous post for previous postings>>
>>>
>>>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?
If the focii of the argument were simply avaricious candidates and
venal politico's, then that discussion might have merit. In an
examination of value systems for groups of persons of a particular
political persuasion, it doesn't.
jps
In your opinion.
jpj...@psbnewton.com
<gene.b...@myworkshop.idleplay.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:18:04 -0500, the1tha...@fish.net penned
>the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
>
<<snipped for brevity>>
>|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. The argument decrying Republican
>|hypocrisy is specious at best.
>
>
>Hmmm.... let's see. That is really some "special" logic!
>
>First, let's state the definition of hypocrisy.
>Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues,
>feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have.
>Hypocrisy typically comes from a desire to mask actual motives or
>feelings, or from a person's inability to conform to standards they
>espouse.
>
>So.... nerdo-crombesians believe that it is morally reprehensible to
>climb trees. In addition to this, they loudly proclaim their superior
>moral principles, define themselves in terms of these principles, and
>evaluate other people based on their adherence to the nerdo-crombesian
>value system.
>
>Anarchy:
>An anarchist notes the discrepancy in nerdo-crombesian specific
>morality vs behavior and condemns the perp for transgressing his own
>nerdo-crombesian laws. (Do as I say, not as I do?) The anarchist
>doesn't believe there should be ANY laws, certainly those about
>climbing trees, but does see a problem with "pretending to have
>beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one
>does not actually have." So that makes him a hypocrite?
>
>Anti-nerdo-crombesians:
>Anti-nerdo-crombesians generally believe that it is morally
>reprehensible to climb trees, but do not loudly proclaim their
>superior moral principles, nor do they define themselves in terms of
>these principles, and tend to evaluate other people based criteria not
>tied so tightly to the Anti-nerdo-crombesian value system. The typical
>Anti-nerdo-crombesian does see a problem with "pretending to have
>beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one
>does not actually have." So that makes him a hypocrite?
>
>Please return to Logic 101 and retake. Do not pass Go do not collect
>$200, go directly to Logic 101.....
Having a remonstrated problem with hypocrisy is "not loudly
proclaiming a superior moral principle," and decrying hypocrisy is not
"evaluating other people based on the criteria of 'your' own,
inimitable value system"?
How convenient. I must commend this poster for submitting such a
stellar rebuttal while yet retreating from any efficacious refutation.
Definitions for a reasonable dialectic;
Hypocrisy - a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one
does not.
And to help lift this poster out of the domain of pretense and
sanctimony (perhaps the poster will be able to determine why this is
being included);
Abstract: Converse Accident or hasty generalization is the fallacy of
drawing a general conclusion based on one or several atypical
instances.
I. Converse Accident: (hasty generalization) the fallacy of
considering certain exceptional cases and generalizing to a rule that
fits them alone. Note that the fallacy of converse accident is the
opposite of accident.
1. Thus, a general statement is made on the basis of insufficient
evidence or on the basis of only a few examples.
1. E.g., "Wow! Did you see that teenager run that red light?
Teenage drivers are really pathetic."
2. E.g., The following argument is raised to oppose the view
that boys have greater inherent mathematical ability. "When I was
four, my father taught me the beauty of numbers, and I have excelled
in mathematics ever since. My conclusion? The males who grew up with
a high aptitude for math are not spending enough time with their
daughters." Nancy Whelan Reese, "Letters," Time, (Vol. 117, No. 1),
6.
2. The generalization is sometimes made on the basis of carelessly
selected evidence
1. E.g., "I interviewed ten people on Main Street in
Greenwood on Friday night, and they all stated they would rather be
there than watching TV. I conclude that the folks in Greenwood don't
like to watch TV on Friday night."
2. E.g., "As I drove to school this morning, not one car
which was turning had its turn signal on. Thus, I conclude that
drivers in South Carolina are not trained to drive very well."
3. E.g., "The induction problem forever haunts us. How many
instances of a class must be observed before one can be really sure?
Having experience two uncoordinated woman-drivers, am I justified in
making a generalization about woman-drivers? (For too many man, a
sampling of two seems to justify such a generalization. Women, of
course, never make this sort of error.)" James L. Christian,
Philosophy (HBJ College, 1998).
H the K
The short answer is far simpler: There are no Republican family values.
jps
wrote:
I think we can assume there's a subset of Republicans who do value
family and hold fast to those values. However, there are also a good
many who use the family values association to curry favor with donors
and voters while feigning standard "Christian" postures.
It seems the closer they get to success and the higher the office, the
more likely they are to inflict mortal wounds on themselves. Perhaps
it's a crisis of conscience that pushes so many of these liars to
eviscerate their own careers.
H the K
I'm sure there are Republicans who value family, as there are Democrats
who value family. But there really are no "institutional" Republican
Party or Democratic Party family values. The Republican Party
"leadership" uses the phrase because it believes it differentiates them
from the Democrats. With all the scandals involving top Republicans,
they're only fooling themselves.
My life's experience tells me that the more someone professes the
typical right-wing interpretation of "christian values," the less likely
they are to follow the teachings of jesus.
jpj...@psbnewton.com
wrote:
>jpj...@psbnewton.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:08:46 -0400, Gene Kearns
>> <gene.b...@myworkshop.idleplay.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:18:04 -0500, the1tha...@fish.net penned
>>> the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
>>>
<<refer to previous post for previously posted>>
>>
>> 3. E.g., "The induction problem forever haunts us. How many
>> instances of a class must be observed before one can be really sure?
>> Having experience two uncoordinated woman-drivers, am I justified in
>> making a generalization about woman-drivers? (For too many man, a
>> sampling of two seems to justify such a generalization. Women, of
>> course, never make this sort of error.)" James L. Christian,
>> Philosophy (HBJ College, 1998).
>>
>> --
>> Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
>> ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
>> Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
>
>
>The short answer is far simpler: There are no Republican family values.
Solipsism suits you, you little nym-shifter you.
H the K
Better to be solipsistically exuberant than bogged down by the hypocrisy
of Republican "family values." I think Daedalus said that before taking
off from Crete. Maybe not.
jpj...@psbnewton.com
jps
Jesus Christ, take it to a men's room stall you two.
H the K
I remember Leo and the rest of the boys from the 25-cent Saturday
matinees...George W. Bush took his place as the king of the malaprop.
jpj...@psbnewton.com
wrote:
Actually, I'm not quite that old. I remember watching the Bowery Boys
on saturday afternoon network television when I was a kid. To be
honest, and I mean no offense, your "solipsisticaly exuberant" phrase
brought Slip Mahoney to mind.
jpj...@psbnewton.com
Spoken like an experienced politician.
H the K
Well, of course, although I didn't have old Slip in mind, or, for that
matter, Daedalus.
H the K
>>>> of Republican "family values." I think Daedalus said that before taking
>>>> off from Crete. Maybe not.
>>> Not. It was Leo Gorcey :)
>> Jesus Christ, take it to a men's room stall you two.
>
> Spoken like an experienced politician.
>
We've gotten used to the mindless gutter badinage that's typically
tossed out by the righties here. Being accused of practicing solipsism,
well...that's at least a step higher on the ladder.
Just John Again
Another bite on an obvious troll.
--
John H
Just John Again
>On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:34:24 -0400, H the K <noones...@nowhere.com>
>wrote:
>
>>jpj...@psbnewton.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:08:46 -0400, Gene Kearns
>>> <gene.b...@myworkshop.idleplay.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:18:04 -0500, the1tha...@fish.net penned
>>>> the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
>>>>
><<refer to previous post for previously posted>>
>>>
>>> 3. E.g., "The induction problem forever haunts us. How many
>>> instances of a class must be observed before one can be really sure?
>>> Having experience two uncoordinated woman-drivers, am I justified in
>>> making a generalization about woman-drivers? (For too many man, a
>>> sampling of two seems to justify such a generalization. Women, of
>>> course, never make this sort of error.)" James L. Christian,
>>> Philosophy (HBJ College, 1998).
>>>
>>> --
>>> Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
>>> ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
>>> Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
>>
>>
>>The short answer is far simpler: There are no Republican family values.
>
>Solipsism suits you, you little nym-shifter you.
A bite on an obvious troll.
--
John H
jpj...@psbnewton.com
wrote:
It's the odd person that actually adopts solipsism as a viable
philosophy. But not far removed from solipsism, though, is the
insulating quality of the internet. Persons can trash each other face
to face in the newsgroups without fear of the social consequence. It's
a behavior that most would find unconscionable, or at the least
regrettable, in public. The behavior here is akin to road rage, where
drivers are insulated from each other by the personal universe of
their vehicle.
I've had some good, liberal friends over the years with whom I've had
some rather passionate political discussions. I generally haven't
agreed with the basic tenets of their respective political
philosophies; but, I've recognized that, for the most part, they were
(and are) decent persons.
Just John Again
There are a few decent liberals right here in the group. You happen to
be responding to the exception. Once he starts calling you names and
you see the light for what it is, you may be able to stop biting at
his obvious trolls.
--
John H
jpj...@psbnewton.com
<salmo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:06:30 -0500, jpj...@psbnewton.com wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:22:20 -0400, H the K <noones...@nowhere.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>jpj...@psbnewton.com wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:27:57 -0700, jps <tr...@thedump.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:17:32 -0500, jpj...@psbnewton.com wrote:
>>>>>
<<snipped for brevity>.
>>>
>>>We've gotten used to the mindless gutter badinage that's typically
>>>tossed out by the righties here. Being accused of practicing solipsism,
>>>well...that's at least a step higher on the ladder.
>>
>>
>>It's the odd person that actually adopts solipsism as a viable
>>philosophy. But not far removed from solipsism, though, is the
>>insulating quality of the internet. Persons can trash each other face
>>to face in the newsgroups without fear of the social consequence. It's
>>a behavior that most would find unconscionable, or at the least
>>regrettable, in public. The behavior here is akin to road rage, where
>>drivers are insulated from each other by the personal universe of
>>their vehicle.
>>
>> I've had some good, liberal friends over the years with whom I've had
>>some rather passionate political discussions. I generally haven't
>>agreed with the basic tenets of their respective political
>>philosophies; but, I've recognized that, for the most part, they were
>>(and are) decent persons.
>
>There are a few decent liberals right here in the group. You happen to
>be responding to the exception. Once he starts calling you names and
>you see the light for what it is, you may be able to stop biting at
>his obvious trolls.
The poster is free to comport himself however he or she wants. My
personal imperative is to try to comport myself in accordance with my
respect for common courtesy.
Vic Smith
>
>It's the odd person that actually adopts solipsism as a viable
>philosophy.
Even odder to hear it mentioned outside ivory towers, or for anyone to
take it seriously as a philosophical construct outside of a classroom.
I'll go with a lit prof's intent when she accused me of solipsism.
"You're bullheaded." I took her chastisement to heart.
--Vic
Just John Again
> My
>personal imperative is to try to comport myself in accordance with my
>respect for common courtesy.
I hope it spreads.
--
John H
jpj...@psbnewton.com
<gene.b...@myworkshop.idleplay.net> wrote:
>
>My! Aren't we feeling sesquipedalian! Your entire response was
>illogical gibberish.
>(Argument By Prestigious Jargon and Argument By Bafflement)
>
Golly gee willkers, you have me on the sesquipedalian indictment. I
forgot my audience. I suppose I'll just have to counter with an
indictment of resorting to the esoteric tu quoque.
Regards
jpj...@psbnewton.com
<gene.b...@myworkshop.idleplay.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:42:00 -0500, jpj...@psbnewton.com penned the
>following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
>
>|On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:57:05 -0400, Gene Kearns
>|<gene.b...@myworkshop.idleplay.net> wrote:
>|
>|
>|>
>|>My! Aren't we feeling sesquipedalian! Your entire response was
>|>illogical gibberish.
>|>(Argument By Prestigious Jargon and Argument By Bafflement)
>|>
>|
>|Golly gee willkers, you have me on the sesquipedalian indictment. I
>|forgot my audience. I suppose I'll just have to counter with an
>|indictment of resorting to the esoteric tu quoque.
>|
>|Regards
>
>I think it is pretty clear that my position was not ad hominem.
Or a form thereof? Subtlety strives to fly under the radar, and
fallacy hasn't avoided you.
Enjoy
H the K
I didn't say I had adopted it; I stated it was a step up the ladder from
the mindless badinage of the righties.
H the K
Hear, hear.
jpj...@psbnewton.com
wrote:
Understood. You'll have to forgive me if I was too subtle in
disassociating you from the strict definition of the solipsist in my
commentary. I'm really too busy to invest much time in these
discussions, and I try to compose these notes on the fly. I'm not
always careful enough in my hurry. To be honest and to be pragmatic,
I really shouldn't be investing any time (else I could be charged with
the hackneyed "you're a 40 year old living in your mother's basement"
ad hom - shades of the Idle Race's "I Like My Toys").
jps
>Subtlety strives to fly under the radar, and
>fallacy hasn't avoided you.
That's not very subtle.
jpj...@psbnewton.com
If you're referring to my statement statement regarding fallacy, it
wasn't intended to be an adroit exercise in subtlety, merely indirect
in some modest measure. At this point, the thread has degenerated to
the state of simple posturing. The original premise, to give it any
justice, ideally requires a more determined disquisition than I can
afford in a meager posting in this thread. I have taken license to
explore the knowledge base of the antagonist in this thread, though,
in the event that I may find occassion to explore the premise more
thoroughly. Should I ever have that time, I'll be a lucky man.
H the K
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:51:45 -0700, jps <tr...@thedump.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:11:43 -0500, jpj...@psbnewton.com wrote:
>>
>>> Subtlety strives to fly under the radar, and
>>> fallacy hasn't avoided you.
>> That's not very subtle.
>
> If you're referring to my statement statement regarding fallacy, it
> wasn't intended to be an adroit exercise in subtlety, merely indirect
> in some modest measure. At this point, the thread has degenerated to
> the state of simple posturing. The original premise, to give it any
> justice, ideally requires a more determined disquisition than I can
> afford in a meager posting in this thread. I have taken license to
> explore the knowledge base of the antagonist in this thread, though,
> in the event that I may find occassion to explore the premise more
> thoroughly. Should I ever have that time, I'll be a lucky man.
>
There are maybe a half dozen posters here on either side of the common
political spectrum whose opinions I value, and once in a while I will
engage in a discussion with them. Mostly, though, I simply avoid making
posts that require a demonstration beyond a few sentences of a
"knowledge base." It hasn't been worth the effort, what with all the
mindless droolers here. But if a few posters want to get rolling in
interesting discussions sans the usual rec.boats bullshit, idiocy, and
name-calling, I might again participate.
I enjoy discussions that allow the use of language at a level higher
than the grammar school level insulting that permeates rec.boats.
Watch the responses from the droolers, if any...they'll be entertaining.
jpj...@psbnewton.com
wrote:
>jpj...@psbnewton.com wrote:
What seems to escape some critics is that a broad lexicon and strong
command of the language can allow a person to be somewhat discreet and
indirect while yet articulating thoughts lucidly. It's a shame that
more persons don't engage language with more dexterity and alacrity.
Loogypicker
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here's Harry, calling names and being an insulting boor while
chastising others for calling names and insulting. Rich isn't it?
Vic Smith
Yes, quite right.
Critically speaking however, broad lexicons rendering unsubstantive
thought are exceedingly tedious in the reading, unless at least laced
with Angl-Saxon expletives - or at bare minimum with a good fucking
story.
--Vic
jps
>On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:51:45 -0700, jps <tr...@thedump.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:11:43 -0500, jpj...@psbnewton.com wrote:
>>
>>>Subtlety strives to fly under the radar, and
>>>fallacy hasn't avoided you.
>>
>>That's not very subtle.
>
>If you're referring to my statement statement regarding fallacy, it
>wasn't intended to be an adroit exercise in subtlety, merely indirect
>in some modest measure.
So much for "strives." Perhaps better w/c was in order?
jps
Hear, hear! Fuckin-a right!
jpj...@psbnewton.com
>On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:42:06 -0500, jpj...@psbnewton.com wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:34:25 -0400, H the K <noones...@nowhere.com>
>>wrote:
>>
<<skissored>>
>Yes, quite right.
>Critically speaking however, broad lexicons rendering unsubstantive
>thought are exceedingly tedious in the reading, unless at least laced
>with Angl-Saxon expletives - or at bare minimum with a good fucking
>story.
>
>--Vic
I suspect that the ambition of this post is to qualify for a retort;
but, there's nothing there :)
Vic Smith
>On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:05:08 -0500, Vic Smith
><thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:42:06 -0500, jpj...@psbnewton.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:34:25 -0400, H the K <noones...@nowhere.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
><<skissored>>
>
>>Yes, quite right.
>>Critically speaking however, broad lexicons rendering unsubstantive
>>thought are exceedingly tedious in the reading, unless at least laced
>>with Angl-Saxon expletives - or at bare minimum with a good fucking
>>story.
>>
>>--Vic
>
>I suspect that the ambition of this post is to qualify for a retort;
>but, there's nothing there :)
Not really, but I never turn down a bonus. (-:
--Vic