🚀 go-pugleaf

Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@rahul.net> wrote in message news:<aj41bm$lv4$1@samba.rahul.net>...
> SD Anderson (102250.1425@compuserve.com) wrote:
> : justin@cjteam.com (justin) wrote in message news:<886c066.0208080718.508c8@posting.google.com>...
> 
> ...
> : > See, the problem is, you think you can
> : > honestly separate a man's personal character from his political
> : > actions.  Yet you cannot.  If a congressman is a sleazy bastard in his
> : > personal life, he is likely to be a sleazy businessman or congressman.
>  
> :    You seem able to separate Cheney's business dealings from his
> : personality.
> 
>      I think that kind of misses the point.  What has sleeping
> around got to do with treason?  Why not say that anybody who
> double parks or spits on the sidewalk is ineligible for public
> office because who knows what that kind of a sleazeball would do
> given the opportunity?  I see no reason whatever to think that
> a person who has an affair is more or less likely to commit a
> crime than someone who has not.
>      Do you have any reason for so thinking except dislike for the
> person who has an affair?
> 
> : > If he has no morals, and will sleep with someone else, why wouldn't he
> : > sell secrets to the chinese or take money under the table from special
> : > interest groups? That's the point.  Perhaps, and sadly, there is a
> : > difference in the eyes of the law.  But there is no difference morally
> : > and frankly, I'm glad to see Condit's political career ruined by this.
> : >  He brought it upon himself.
>  
> :    There are consequences.  It's unreasonable to expect the girl
> : you're having an affair with will be murdered.  Even less reasonable
> : to expect the girl would be killed under conditions that would tie you
> : to it.
>  
> :    The expected consequences of having an affair with a consenting
> : adult were much smaller than that.
>  
> :    The expected consequences of trying to sell secrets to a foriegn
> : power are...
> : JUST A WHOLE LOT GREATER.  Besides, Congressmen generally don't have
> : access to the technical DETAILS espionage agents want.
> 
>      Again I think this misses the point.  If you have some rational
> reason to believe that a person who has an affair, or who double 
> parks or speeds or spits on the sidewalk, is more likely to be
> unpatriotic or treasonous, I would like to hear it.

   Technically, **I** don't have any such reason, rational or
otherwise, to believe this.  Justin, the poster I was responding to
apparently does have such a reason, though I can't say it's rational. 
;)

   Use of the word 'you' and placement of your reply indicates you
were responding to me rather than to him.