- This topic has 260 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 6 months ago by
Zeitgeist.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 17, 2009 at 5:19 PM #471234October 17, 2009 at 5:21 PM #470413
patb
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Zeitgeist]I think they are mostly identical: both being the party of the corporation and not the party of the people who they represent. What say you, Arraya?[/quote]
Zeit: Arraya’s right and its easy enough to prove. Take a hard look at Pelosi, the Dem’s crusading avenger against corruption and influence peddling. Remember her declaiming about “draining the swamp” and ushering in a new era of honesty and accountability following the Tom DeLay and Abramoff fiascos?
Now we have Charlie Rangel and nary a peep from Nancy. No calls for him to step down or step aside. It appears honesty and transparency and accountability only count when it comes to the other party, right, Brian?
“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”.[/quote]
jefferson was kicked from all his committees.
Rangel will probably lose his chair or step down, but, right now he’s bad
at taxes, bad at paperwork and strongarms for the rangel center of public policy.Far Different then Tom Delay promoting Sex Slavery.
October 17, 2009 at 5:21 PM #470595Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Zeitgeist]I think they are mostly identical: both being the party of the corporation and not the party of the people who they represent. What say you, Arraya?[/quote]
Zeit: Arraya’s right and its easy enough to prove. Take a hard look at Pelosi, the Dem’s crusading avenger against corruption and influence peddling. Remember her declaiming about “draining the swamp” and ushering in a new era of honesty and accountability following the Tom DeLay and Abramoff fiascos?
Now we have Charlie Rangel and nary a peep from Nancy. No calls for him to step down or step aside. It appears honesty and transparency and accountability only count when it comes to the other party, right, Brian?
“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”.[/quote]
jefferson was kicked from all his committees.
Rangel will probably lose his chair or step down, but, right now he’s bad
at taxes, bad at paperwork and strongarms for the rangel center of public policy.Far Different then Tom Delay promoting Sex Slavery.
October 17, 2009 at 5:21 PM #470951Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Zeitgeist]I think they are mostly identical: both being the party of the corporation and not the party of the people who they represent. What say you, Arraya?[/quote]
Zeit: Arraya’s right and its easy enough to prove. Take a hard look at Pelosi, the Dem’s crusading avenger against corruption and influence peddling. Remember her declaiming about “draining the swamp” and ushering in a new era of honesty and accountability following the Tom DeLay and Abramoff fiascos?
Now we have Charlie Rangel and nary a peep from Nancy. No calls for him to step down or step aside. It appears honesty and transparency and accountability only count when it comes to the other party, right, Brian?
“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”.[/quote]
jefferson was kicked from all his committees.
Rangel will probably lose his chair or step down, but, right now he’s bad
at taxes, bad at paperwork and strongarms for the rangel center of public policy.Far Different then Tom Delay promoting Sex Slavery.
October 17, 2009 at 5:21 PM #471024Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Zeitgeist]I think they are mostly identical: both being the party of the corporation and not the party of the people who they represent. What say you, Arraya?[/quote]
Zeit: Arraya’s right and its easy enough to prove. Take a hard look at Pelosi, the Dem’s crusading avenger against corruption and influence peddling. Remember her declaiming about “draining the swamp” and ushering in a new era of honesty and accountability following the Tom DeLay and Abramoff fiascos?
Now we have Charlie Rangel and nary a peep from Nancy. No calls for him to step down or step aside. It appears honesty and transparency and accountability only count when it comes to the other party, right, Brian?
“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”.[/quote]
jefferson was kicked from all his committees.
Rangel will probably lose his chair or step down, but, right now he’s bad
at taxes, bad at paperwork and strongarms for the rangel center of public policy.Far Different then Tom Delay promoting Sex Slavery.
October 17, 2009 at 5:21 PM #471242Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Zeitgeist]I think they are mostly identical: both being the party of the corporation and not the party of the people who they represent. What say you, Arraya?[/quote]
Zeit: Arraya’s right and its easy enough to prove. Take a hard look at Pelosi, the Dem’s crusading avenger against corruption and influence peddling. Remember her declaiming about “draining the swamp” and ushering in a new era of honesty and accountability following the Tom DeLay and Abramoff fiascos?
Now we have Charlie Rangel and nary a peep from Nancy. No calls for him to step down or step aside. It appears honesty and transparency and accountability only count when it comes to the other party, right, Brian?
“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”.[/quote]
jefferson was kicked from all his committees.
Rangel will probably lose his chair or step down, but, right now he’s bad
at taxes, bad at paperwork and strongarms for the rangel center of public policy.Far Different then Tom Delay promoting Sex Slavery.
October 17, 2009 at 5:56 PM #470418Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=briansd1]
The Clinton/Lewinski affair was nothing. The man had sex and lied out it. So what? Leave him alone.I’m sure you’d say that I’m morally flexible and you’d be right.
The prosecutor should determine if a crime is even worth prosecuting before spending time and resources.
Wouldn’t the pragmatic war strategist in you come to the same conclusion?[/quote]
Brian: So we’re clear here, Clinton was NOT impeached for having sex and lying about it. He was impeached for suborning perjury. HUGE difference. Here we have a sitting president, who is also an attorney, clearly violating his oath of office, as well as the Canon of Ethics, and doing so with full knowledge of both the transgression and the penalty.
As an Army officer, we were held to a moral code and one that I fervently believed in, up to and including not following orders that I felt were immoral (happened on two occasions).
So, no, the “pragmatic war strategist” in me doesn’t see your point. No, I’m not some little naif, but I do believe that having a code of conduct is important and following the rule of law is important.
As to “moral flexibility”, there is NO such thing. You may subscribe to that bullshit in your own mind, but its a fallacy. You either have a moral code you live by, or you don’t. You either have principles that are worth dying for, or you don’t. No middle ground.
Or as the right Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr said, “A man who won’t die for something is not fit to live”.
October 17, 2009 at 5:56 PM #470600Participant[quote=briansd1]
The Clinton/Lewinski affair was nothing. The man had sex and lied out it. So what? Leave him alone.I’m sure you’d say that I’m morally flexible and you’d be right.
The prosecutor should determine if a crime is even worth prosecuting before spending time and resources.
Wouldn’t the pragmatic war strategist in you come to the same conclusion?[/quote]
Brian: So we’re clear here, Clinton was NOT impeached for having sex and lying about it. He was impeached for suborning perjury. HUGE difference. Here we have a sitting president, who is also an attorney, clearly violating his oath of office, as well as the Canon of Ethics, and doing so with full knowledge of both the transgression and the penalty.
As an Army officer, we were held to a moral code and one that I fervently believed in, up to and including not following orders that I felt were immoral (happened on two occasions).
So, no, the “pragmatic war strategist” in me doesn’t see your point. No, I’m not some little naif, but I do believe that having a code of conduct is important and following the rule of law is important.
As to “moral flexibility”, there is NO such thing. You may subscribe to that bullshit in your own mind, but its a fallacy. You either have a moral code you live by, or you don’t. You either have principles that are worth dying for, or you don’t. No middle ground.
Or as the right Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr said, “A man who won’t die for something is not fit to live”.
October 17, 2009 at 5:56 PM #470955Participant[quote=briansd1]
The Clinton/Lewinski affair was nothing. The man had sex and lied out it. So what? Leave him alone.I’m sure you’d say that I’m morally flexible and you’d be right.
The prosecutor should determine if a crime is even worth prosecuting before spending time and resources.
Wouldn’t the pragmatic war strategist in you come to the same conclusion?[/quote]
Brian: So we’re clear here, Clinton was NOT impeached for having sex and lying about it. He was impeached for suborning perjury. HUGE difference. Here we have a sitting president, who is also an attorney, clearly violating his oath of office, as well as the Canon of Ethics, and doing so with full knowledge of both the transgression and the penalty.
As an Army officer, we were held to a moral code and one that I fervently believed in, up to and including not following orders that I felt were immoral (happened on two occasions).
So, no, the “pragmatic war strategist” in me doesn’t see your point. No, I’m not some little naif, but I do believe that having a code of conduct is important and following the rule of law is important.
As to “moral flexibility”, there is NO such thing. You may subscribe to that bullshit in your own mind, but its a fallacy. You either have a moral code you live by, or you don’t. You either have principles that are worth dying for, or you don’t. No middle ground.
Or as the right Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr said, “A man who won’t die for something is not fit to live”.
October 17, 2009 at 5:56 PM #471029Participant[quote=briansd1]
The Clinton/Lewinski affair was nothing. The man had sex and lied out it. So what? Leave him alone.I’m sure you’d say that I’m morally flexible and you’d be right.
The prosecutor should determine if a crime is even worth prosecuting before spending time and resources.
Wouldn’t the pragmatic war strategist in you come to the same conclusion?[/quote]
Brian: So we’re clear here, Clinton was NOT impeached for having sex and lying about it. He was impeached for suborning perjury. HUGE difference. Here we have a sitting president, who is also an attorney, clearly violating his oath of office, as well as the Canon of Ethics, and doing so with full knowledge of both the transgression and the penalty.
As an Army officer, we were held to a moral code and one that I fervently believed in, up to and including not following orders that I felt were immoral (happened on two occasions).
So, no, the “pragmatic war strategist” in me doesn’t see your point. No, I’m not some little naif, but I do believe that having a code of conduct is important and following the rule of law is important.
As to “moral flexibility”, there is NO such thing. You may subscribe to that bullshit in your own mind, but its a fallacy. You either have a moral code you live by, or you don’t. You either have principles that are worth dying for, or you don’t. No middle ground.
Or as the right Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr said, “A man who won’t die for something is not fit to live”.
October 17, 2009 at 5:56 PM #471247Participant[quote=briansd1]
The Clinton/Lewinski affair was nothing. The man had sex and lied out it. So what? Leave him alone.I’m sure you’d say that I’m morally flexible and you’d be right.
The prosecutor should determine if a crime is even worth prosecuting before spending time and resources.
Wouldn’t the pragmatic war strategist in you come to the same conclusion?[/quote]
Brian: So we’re clear here, Clinton was NOT impeached for having sex and lying about it. He was impeached for suborning perjury. HUGE difference. Here we have a sitting president, who is also an attorney, clearly violating his oath of office, as well as the Canon of Ethics, and doing so with full knowledge of both the transgression and the penalty.
As an Army officer, we were held to a moral code and one that I fervently believed in, up to and including not following orders that I felt were immoral (happened on two occasions).
So, no, the “pragmatic war strategist” in me doesn’t see your point. No, I’m not some little naif, but I do believe that having a code of conduct is important and following the rule of law is important.
As to “moral flexibility”, there is NO such thing. You may subscribe to that bullshit in your own mind, but its a fallacy. You either have a moral code you live by, or you don’t. You either have principles that are worth dying for, or you don’t. No middle ground.
Or as the right Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr said, “A man who won’t die for something is not fit to live”.
October 17, 2009 at 9:30 PM #470447briansd1
GuestAllan, I find it hard to believe that someone who supports wars of resources acquisition, preemptive strikes, and using the military, if necessary, to get out of paying our debts doesn’t have some moral flexibility.
What about all the collateral damage? That’s just tough luck, huh?
BTW, I support the above too, when they make sense.
It’s always easy to be faithful to the narrow mission. But it’s much harder to look at the larger moral picture.
October 17, 2009 at 9:30 PM #470630GuestAllan, I find it hard to believe that someone who supports wars of resources acquisition, preemptive strikes, and using the military, if necessary, to get out of paying our debts doesn’t have some moral flexibility.
What about all the collateral damage? That’s just tough luck, huh?
BTW, I support the above too, when they make sense.
It’s always easy to be faithful to the narrow mission. But it’s much harder to look at the larger moral picture.
October 17, 2009 at 9:30 PM #470985GuestAllan, I find it hard to believe that someone who supports wars of resources acquisition, preemptive strikes, and using the military, if necessary, to get out of paying our debts doesn’t have some moral flexibility.
What about all the collateral damage? That’s just tough luck, huh?
BTW, I support the above too, when they make sense.
It’s always easy to be faithful to the narrow mission. But it’s much harder to look at the larger moral picture.
October 17, 2009 at 9:30 PM #471060GuestAllan, I find it hard to believe that someone who supports wars of resources acquisition, preemptive strikes, and using the military, if necessary, to get out of paying our debts doesn’t have some moral flexibility.
What about all the collateral damage? That’s just tough luck, huh?
BTW, I support the above too, when they make sense.
It’s always easy to be faithful to the narrow mission. But it’s much harder to look at the larger moral picture.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.