or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Quite a Week for Democrats and Ethics
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Quite a Week for Democrats and Ethics

post #1 of 58
Thread Starter 
Speaker Pelosi had promised the nation that this Democrat Congress would be "the most ethical evah" and the nation foolishly believed her... This week showed that the swamp of Congress (both House and Senate) is not yet drained.

Among the week's worst ethical offenders:

=> Democrat Charley Rangel, former Ways and Means chairman, charged with 13 ethics violations (failure to disclose income, belated payment of taxes, misuse of his office for fundraising).

=> Democrat Maxine Waters being investigated by House ethics subcommittee for allegations of wrongdoing (improperly intervening with federal officials on behalf of a local bank).

And these smaller ethical transgressions:

=> Democrat Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts has agreed to pay about $500,000 in taxes for a luxury yacht that he docked outside the state (in response only to media scrutiny).

=> Democrat Alan Grayson bills taxpayers $73,000 for DVD of his term's highlights (a DVD sent to tens of thousands of Central Florida residents).

Seems that Democrats can't wrap themselves around that ethics word quite yet...
post #2 of 58
I wouldn't characterize the Kerry thing as an ethics thing (in the same sense as the other items) merely hypocrisy. That's bad too of course.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #3 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I wouldn't characterize the Kerry thing as an ethics thing (in the same sense as the other items) merely hypocrisy. That's bad too of course.

You're absolutely right; the ethical transgression here was not specifically Kerry's decision to avoid paying taxes on his luxury yacht; but rather his decision to do it only when pressed by media scrutiny! I should have clarified that point...
post #4 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

You're absolutely right; the ethical transgression here was not specifically Kerry's decision to avoid paying taxes on his luxury yacht; but rather his decision to do it only when pressed by media scrutiny! I should have clarified that point...

Mind you, I have no doubt that he's also an unethical (and hypocritical) scumbag in other ways as well.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #5 of 58
Maybe one way out of this mess is to have term limits. Also have limits on spending for campaigns. Seems that the longer one is in office, the more corrupt they become.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #6 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Maybe one way out of this mess is to have term limits. Also have limits on spending for campaigns. Seems that the longer one is in office, the more corrupt they become.

Not so sure about that. Term limits seem to be treating a symptom rather than the disease itself. The problem is that power corrupts. It seems that giving these people less power might be a step in the right direction and strike the core or root of the problem. Within the federal government in particular, these people seem to have access to way too much power.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #7 of 58
The premise of this thread shows a thorough lack of understanding of the most basic principles of logic.

Pelosi may honestly be right.

"Most ethical ever" != "100% ethical". As unethical as things may be now, it is more than a little possible that things were even less ethical before.

It's also possible that this Democratic Congress is more ethical than any Republican Congress has ever been. I'm not making that claim now, but who knows and can prove otherwise?
post #8 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The premise of this thread shows a thorough lack of understanding of the most basic principles of logic.

Pelosi may honestly be right.

"Most ethical ever" != "100% ethical". As unethical as things may be now, it is more than a little possible that things were even less ethical before.

It's also possible that this Democratic Congress is more ethical than any Republican Congress has ever been. I'm not making that claim now, but who knows and can prove otherwise?

This is all exactly right. In fact when that quote was posted before I comment that we are grading on a curve here.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #9 of 58

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #10 of 58
Yes, let's go back to the ethical years of George Bush and Dick Cheney. Everything was just perfect then. Oh how I miss raised security levels the day before a national holiday.
post #11 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajectory View Post

Yes, let's go back to the ethical years of George Bush and Dick Cheney. Everything was just perfect then. Oh how I miss raised security levels the day before a national holiday.

While Republicans also had ethical issues they ran afoul the GOP as a whole worked toward a higher ethical standard while Democrats ignore ethics entirely! Look here... just after charging Rangel with 13 ethical violations see what the Democrats celebrate - the Democrats are evil to so casually ignore ethical violations and celebrate their violators=>

Dem leaders, donors to hold Rangel birthday bash at The Plaza
By Alexander Bolton\t - 07/31/10 11:15 AM ET
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/11...-bash-at-plaza
Democratic leaders and major party donors plan to hold a lavish 80th birthday gala for Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) at The Plaza Hotel in Manhattan next month, despite 13 ethics charges pending against the veteran lawmaker.
post #12 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajectory View Post

Yes, let's go back to the ethical years of George Bush and Dick Cheney. Everything was just perfect then. Oh how I miss raised security levels the day before a national holiday.

jimmac? Is that you?


Is there some particular form of liberal mental deficiency which views criticism of the current administration and Democrat power-holders in Congress as an automatic endorsement of the previous administration and Republicans?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #13 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

This is all exactly right. In fact when that quote was posted before I comment that we are grading on a curve here.

I noticed.
post #14 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajectory View Post

Yes, let's go back to the ethical years of George Bush and Dick Cheney. Everything was just perfect then. Oh how I miss raised security levels the day before a national holiday.

Yup! It's just amazing how the right miss this logical point every time.

And of course you know if the situation was reversed it would be all they talked about. Except of course the last time we had a regime change the other way the in coming president was handed a recession but also handed a surplus! Which lasted 6 months before he depleated it.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #15 of 58
...or like when a $400 billion deficit was reckless spending but a $1.5 trillion one is fiscal prudence...or where 7.5% unemployment was a disaster but 9.5% is a recovery or where secrecy and opaqueness is openness and transparency...or where two wars under Bush was a disaster but two wars under Obama (and starting up with Iran and Pakistan and maybe even North Korea) is prudent and wise foreign policy...

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #16 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajectory View Post

Yes, let's go back to the ethical years of George Bush and Dick Cheney. Everything was just perfect then. Oh how I miss raised security levels the day before a national holiday.

Right, because it's totally implausible that threats increase during busy travel times and dates of national significance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yup! It's just amazing how the right miss this logical point every time.

Which point would that be?

Quote:

And of course you know if the situation was reversed it would be all they talked about. Except of course the last time we had a regime change the other way the in coming president was handed a recession but also handed a surplus! Which lasted 6 months before he depleated it.

A surplus cannot be "depleted" jimmac. It wasn't some bank account that Bush raided for pizza and beer money. It was a projected fiscal surplus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

...or like when a $400 billion deficit was reckless spending but a $1.5 trillion one is fiscal prudence...or where 7.5% unemployment was a disaster but 9.5% is a recovery or where secrecy and opaqueness is openness and transparency...or where two wars under Bush was a disaster but two wars under Obama (and starting up with Iran and Pakistan and maybe even North Korea) is prudent and wise foreign policy...


This is something that even many Obama supporters are now acknowledging. The Left, in particular, is pissed about many Obama actions and policies, and the center is now nearly as apoplectic as the Right. It's one thing to say you think that stimulus was necessary and that we needed to spend the money for infrastructure. It's wrong, but it's honest. It's a whole other thing to claim the insanity that you detailed so well.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #17 of 58
I like Rangle and think he's a decent guy. On a long enough time scale I think most on capitol hill will lose the ability to see their transgressions and make more and more lapses.


One thing you forgot on the list was Dodd's "friends of Angelo" loan deal. Dodd is not running for reelection so it's out of the headlines.
post #18 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

I like Rangle and think he's a decent guy. On a long enough time scale I think most on capitol hill will lose the ability to see their transgressions and make more and more lapses.


One thing you forgot on the list was Dodd's "friends of Angelo" loan deal. Dodd is not running for reelection so it's out of the headlines.

What???
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #19 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

What???

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #20 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Right, because it's totally implausible that threats increase during busy travel times and dates of national significance.



Which point would that be?



A surplus cannot be "depleted" jimmac. It wasn't some bank account that Bush raided for pizza and beer money. It was a projected fiscal surplus.



This is something that even many Obama supporters are now acknowledging. The Left, in particular, is pissed about many Obama actions and policies, and the center is now nearly as apoplectic as the Right. It's one thing to say you think that stimulus was necessary and that we needed to spend the money for infrastructure. It's wrong, but it's honest. It's a whole other thing to claim the insanity that you detailed so well.

Quote:
A surplus cannot be "depleted" jimmac. It wasn't some bank account that Bush raided for pizza and beer money. It was a projected fiscal surplus.

It was still gone in 6 months. Meanwhile dubbya is down on the ranch half of the time.


Stilll making excuses I see.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #21 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

What???


What do you mean what? I see him on TV and sundry talking head shows and he seems like a decent guy. I think he's in politics for more of the right reasons than the wrong reasons.
post #22 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Is there some particular form of liberal mental deficiency which views criticism of the current administration and Democrat power-holders in Congress as an automatic endorsement of the previous administration and Republicans?

You refer to it as "mental deficiency," the rest of us refer to it as "common sense." Try it sometime.
post #23 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Right, because it's totally implausible that threats increase during busy travel times and dates of national significance.

If you believe that all those security "threats" were real, even though quite a few were debunked by the media because they were based on flimsy or non-existent intel, I've got two bridges to sell you. One is called George, the other is called Dick. Let's start the bidding at Zero Sense.
post #24 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajectory View Post

You refer to it as "mental deficiency," the rest of us refer to it as "common sense."

I believe the phrase you're searching for is logical fallacy.

I suspect this derives from the exceedingly narrow view wherein there are only these two possibilities:

1. like and agree with current administration or
2. like and agree with previous administration

This is a lot like saying or thinking something like you either like Mexican food* or you like Italian food*, and if you don't like Mexican food, then you must like Italian food.

*Feel free to use Coke and Pepsi here if you like as a more common (and probably accurate) characterization of the political choices we have in the US.


I'd argue that such a view can in fact be objectively characterized as a mental deficiency.

In point of fact one could easily be critical of both (and surprisingly, to some for some of the same reasons.)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #25 of 58
With the most transparent government ever, it's hard to believe such things could be happening...

Obama closes curtain on transparency

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #26 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I believe the phrase you're searching for is logical fallacy.

I suspect this derives from the exceedingly narrow view wherein there are only these two possibilities:

1. like and agree with current administration or
2. like and agree with previous administration

This is a lot like saying or thinking something like you either like Mexican food* or you like Italian food*, and if you don't like Mexican food, then you must like Italian food.

*Feel free to use Coke and Pepsi here if you like as a more common (and probably accurate) characterization of the political choices we have in the US.


I'd argue that such a view can in fact be objectively characterized as a mental deficiency.

In point of fact one could easily be critical of both (and surprisingly, to some for some of the same reasons.)

Ok so you would offer what or who specifically as an alternative?

Let's see if we can pin you down as to who you'd vote for ( must currently exist of course ) instead of " Coke or Pepsi ".

And guys this question is being asked of MJ. I want to know who he favors.]
Responses from others will be ignored in this case. I'm betting of course I won't get a straight answer.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #27 of 58
Thread Starter 
Democrat indicted on felony porn charge!!!

Longshot US Senate candidate from SC indicted
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081303771.html
By MEG KINNARD
The Associated Press
Friday, August 13, 2010; 8:42 PM
COLUMBIA, S.C. -- Longshot Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Alvin Greene was indicted Friday on two charges, including a felony charge of showing pornography to a teenage student in a South Carolina college computer lab.
post #28 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Ok so you would offer what or who specifically as an alternative?

Oh, you know the answer, Jim. I understand MJ here. He doesn't favor either the Repubs or the Dems. He's made that clear. He would vote for the Libertarian view every time, even if his vote has little effect on the election. If there's no libertarian available for him to vote for, he would either vote for the candidate who holds the views most closely associated with economic Libertarianism (almost exclusively a Republican), or he would vote for no one at all.

It's just that cutting taxes and cutting spending falls in line with his philosophy more than anything else. Bush and Obama both went apeshit with spending, so he opposes both. There are (Republican) candidates who claim they will cut spending, make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and whatever, and even if they haven't demonstrated any plan for how they're going to perform this economic miracle and still maintain a budget, he takes their word for it and gives them his support. He is not inconsistent here.
post #29 of 58
Politicians being dirty? That's unpossible!

Arguing which party currently has the better ethics is like arguing over which serial killer has the fewest kills.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #30 of 58
Thank tonton for trying to tell everyone what I think and would do and would support. Or whatever.

First the question jimmac poses is really irrelevant to the point I was making, but I'll address it anyway. In terms of a specific person or politician or candidate, I would say that Ron Paul most consistently presents a consistent and cohesive view of liberty that I support. Many call him a "libertarian", he officially runs as a "Republican", he has most frequently characterized himself as a "constitutionalist" (well there ought to be at least one in Congress.)

All in all I'd say he best represents my own views.

For those who will jump to the immediate (and superficial) conclusion like "See! I told you you were a Republican!" I'd like to remind you that Ron Paul has been rejected, dismissed and ticked off "mainstream" establishment party Republicans (and neocons in particular) almost as much as he has from Democrats or liberals. Also, some Democrats/liberals/progressives might find that they actually agree with him on some issues (if any actually took the time to listen to him.)

Now, is Ron Paul electable to the presidency? Almost certainly not. He doesn't simply tell people what they want to hear and make all sorts of grand promises of great things with little or not cost. He doesn't sound as eloquent or pander as well as someone like Barack Obama, for example. He'll likely never get elected president.

But that is my specific alternative. If I could have voted for him in the last election I would have. I couldn't because he wasn't on the ballot and my ballot did not have an option to write in a different name/candidate.


But back to the more relevant point of my previous post: The point was that just because someone (like myself) is critical of Barack Obama does not automatically mean I "want to go back to the Bush" approach. That's simply an illogical and (at this point) stupid assumption.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #31 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

Politicians being dirty? That's unpossible!

Arguing which party currently has the better ethics is like arguing over which serial killer has the fewest kills.

Score! iPoster FTW.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #32 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Thank tonton for trying to tell everyone what I think and would do and would support. Or whatever.

So was I wrong?
post #33 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Thank tonton for trying to tell everyone what I think and would do and would support. Or whatever.

First the question jimmac poses is really irrelevant to the point I was making, but I'll address it anyway. In terms of a specific person or politician or candidate, I would say that Ron Paul most consistently presents a consistent and cohesive view of liberty that I support. Many call him a "libertarian", he officially runs as a "Republican", he has most frequently characterized himself as a "constitutionalist" (well there ought to be at least one in Congress.)

All in all I'd say he best represents my own views.

For those who will jump to the immediate (and superficial) conclusion like "See! I told you you were a Republican!" I'd like to remind you that Ron Paul has been rejected, dismissed and ticked off "mainstream" establishment party Republicans (and neocons in particular) almost as much as he has from Democrats or liberals. Also, some Democrats/liberals/progressives might find that they actually agree with him on some issues (if any actually took the time to listen to him.)

Now, is Ron Paul electable to the presidency? Almost certainly not. He doesn't simply tell people what they want to hear and make all sorts of grand promises of great things with little or not cost. He doesn't sound as eloquent or pander as well as someone like Barack Obama, for example. He'll likely never get elected president.

But that is my specific alternative. If I could have voted for him in the last election I would have. I couldn't because he wasn't on the ballot and my ballot did not have an option to write in a different name/candidate.


But back to the more relevant point of my previous post: The point was that just because someone (like myself) is critical of Barack Obama does not automatically mean I "want to go back to the Bush" approach. That's simply an illogical and (at this point) stupid assumption.

I agree with you 100%. I voted for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party in 2008 because Ron Paul endorsed him.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #34 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I agree with you 100%. I voted for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party in 2008 because Ron Paul endorsed him.

Personally, after reviewing the Constitution Party platform, I found I could never in good conscience vote for any of their candidates.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #35 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Personally, after reviewing the Constitution Party platform, I found I could never in good conscience vote for any of their candidates.

You see, that's the thing. There are a hell of a lot of (ignorant) people who are single issue voters and never take the time to look at platforms. As long as they hear "outlaw all abortion" or "homosexuality should be against the law" or "free-market", or "abolish the income tax", or whatever their single issue is, they're in.
post #36 of 58
Considering the alternatives, Mr. Baldwin was the candidate whose platform and policies most closely mirrored my own views. Mr. Paul was a better choice for me, but was neither on the ballot nor a write-in candidate.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #37 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So was I wrong?

This:

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton

There are (Republican) candidates who claim they will cut spending, make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and whatever, and even if they haven't demonstrated any plan for how they're going to perform this economic miracle and still maintain a budget, he takes their word for it and gives them his support.

Yes, you are wrong.

P.S. And what about all those people who took Obama at his word for what he said he would do and gave their support to him?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #38 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Thank tonton for trying to tell everyone what I think and would do and would support. Or whatever.

First the question jimmac poses is really irrelevant to the point I was making, but I'll address it anyway. In terms of a specific person or politician or candidate, I would say that Ron Paul most consistently presents a consistent and cohesive view of liberty that I support. Many call him a "libertarian", he officially runs as a "Republican", he has most frequently characterized himself as a "constitutionalist" (well there ought to be at least one in Congress.)

All in all I'd say he best represents my own views.

For those who will jump to the immediate (and superficial) conclusion like "See! I told you you were a Republican!" I'd like to remind you that Ron Paul has been rejected, dismissed and ticked off "mainstream" establishment party Republicans (and neocons in particular) almost as much as he has from Democrats or liberals. Also, some Democrats/liberals/progressives might find that they actually agree with him on some issues (if any actually took the time to listen to him.)

Now, is Ron Paul electable to the presidency? Almost certainly not. He doesn't simply tell people what they want to hear and make all sorts of grand promises of great things with little or not cost. He doesn't sound as eloquent or pander as well as someone like Barack Obama, for example. He'll likely never get elected president.

But that is my specific alternative. If I could have voted for him in the last election I would have. I couldn't because he wasn't on the ballot and my ballot did not have an option to write in a different name/candidate.


But back to the more relevant point of my previous post: The point was that just because someone (like myself) is critical of Barack Obama does not automatically mean I "want to go back to the Bush" approach. That's simply an illogical and (at this point) stupid assumption.


I think my question was extremely relevant. MJ has been quite vocal about others voting for " Coke or Pepsi " when he doesn't seem above this himself. Also what he would deem the ideal situation isn't even remotely in the cards for reality right now. Meanwhile the world still turns and the very real problems remain. Now you could ignore these problems and not vote however that's like handing the keys to car to a stranger and saying" I'm not driving because I don't agree with how the roads are laid out ". You have to do something and if you merely choose to not take part in the driving you get drivers like Bush ( by default like we did in 2000 with all of the voter apathy that was characteristic of that year when he was one of two milquetoast candidates ) and will find yourself in a ditch.

So there you have it everyone. Right in easy to read black and white. On the one hand he doesn't like the fact that I ( admittedly ) will vote for the what I see as the lesser of two evils ( Coke ) but on the other he does just the same thing! The only difference is that he'd vote for the republicans ( Pepsi ) ! So folks if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck ( except it's feathers are a slightly different color ) it must be a duck ( in spite of what it says ).

MJ is a Republican of a different color and isn't afraid to buy into the very same flavors he criticizes others for. The only difference is he favors the guys who were up at bat last time and we all know where that went. For the record once again I don't agree with everything Obama does however he's lightyears better than another Bush. There are other issues besides just how much money is being spent.

That being said I respect the fact that he's honest about it and if he likes Ron Paul that's just fine. However if he runs as a Republican that pretty much says it all because if he's with that party they have very clearly demonstrated on many shows recently like " Meet The Press " that they don't have anything new up their collective sleeves and would be going right back to the approach that worked so well in the years of the last decade leading to here. And is Ron Paul someone who's ever going to see the inside of the Whitehouse? I think you all know the answer to that one.

So in essence MJ doesn't really have a real alternative to what most of us do. Because we must. Even if we may not like the way the roads are laid out we'd rather drive those roads than end up in a ditch.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #39 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I think my question was extremely relevant. MJ has been quite vocal about others voting for " Coke or Pepsi " when he doesn't seem above this himself.

Your lack of comprehension is truly astounding sometimes. I was addressing a specific problem in which you ( and others) assume that if someone is critical of Obama, then they must wish to go back to the Bush policies. This is logical fallacy...and, at this point, continued insistence of it is stupid.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Also what he would deem the ideal situation isn't even remotely in the cards for reality right now.

So?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Meanwhile the world still turns and the very real problems remain.

Maybe because people like you simply keep voting for the most popular candidates and not voting for the people who might actually fix the problems.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Now you could ignore these problems and not vote however that's like handing the keys to car to a stranger and saying" I'm not driving because I don't agree with how the roads are laid out ".

What a terrible analogy. But how about we extend it anyway: Voting for Obama was like handing the car keys to someone who said he knew how to drive (and many people simply believed this stranger) and which direction to drive in (despite having no real driving experience) but has now not only driven in the wrong direction is in real risk of crashing the car.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You have to do something and if you merely choose to not take part in the driving you get drivers like Bush ( by default like we did in 2000 when he was one of two milquetoast candidates ) and will find yourself in a ditch.

And sometimes when you do vote you get drivers like Obama also and you find your self headed for a cliff.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So there you have it everyone. Right in easy to read black and white. On the one hand he doesn't like the fact that I ( admittedly ) will vote for the what I see as the lesser of two evils ( Coke ) but on the other he does just the same thing!

If the conclusion you see is so black and white, perhaps you can show the rest of us.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

MJ is a Republican of a different color and isn't afraid to buy into the very same flavors he criticizes others for. The only difference is he favors the guys who were up at bat last time and we all know where that went.

Again you appear to hang on to the tired fallacy I've tried point out.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The only difference is that he'd vote for the republicans ( Pepsi ) ! So folks if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck ( except it's feathers are a slightly different color ) it must be a duck ( in spite of what it says ).

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

However if he runs as a Republican that pretty much says it all because if he's with that party they have very clearly demonstrated on many shows recently like " Meet The Press " that they don't have anything new up their collective sleeves and would be going right back to the approach that worked so well in the years of the last decade leading to here.

I predicted your simplistic analysis of this...and you have not failed to deliver. Rock on jimmac!


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And is Ron Paul someone who's ever going to see the inside of the Whitehouse? I think you all know the answer to that one.

And I admitted that, Einstein.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #40 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Your lack of comprehension is truly astounding sometimes. I was addressing a specific problem in which you ( and others) assume that if someone is critical of Obama, then they must wish to go back to the Bush policies. This is logical fallacy...and, at this point, continued insistence of it is stupid.




So?




Maybe because people like you simply keep voting for the most popular candidates and not voting for the people who might actually fix the problems.




What a terrible analogy. But how about we extend it anyway: Voting for Obama was like handing the car keys to someone who said he knew how to drive (and many people simply believed this stranger) and which direction to drive in (despite having no real driving experience) but has now not only driven in the wrong direction is in real risk of crashing the car.




And sometimes when you do vote you get drivers like Obama also and you find your self headed for a cliff.




If the conclusion you see is so black and white, perhaps you can show the rest of us.




Again you appear to hang on to the tired fallacy I've tried point out.






I predicted your simplistic analysis of this...and you have not failed to deliver. Rock on jimmac!




And I admitted that, Einstein.


Quote:
What a terrible analogy. But how about we extend it anyway: Voting for Obama was like handing the car keys to someone who said he knew how to drive (and many people simply believed this stranger) and which direction to drive in (despite having no real driving experience) but has now not only driven in the wrong direction is in real risk of crashing the car.

Except the one difference between these two drivers. Obama took the keys while the car was wildly careening into a ditch. No matter who took control we were in for a wild ride no matter what. Also unlike Bush he's not anywhere near finished. You can't look back in the same way and say what kind of driver he was.

Quote:
I predicted your simplistic analysis of this...and you have not failed to deliver. Rock on jimmac!

Sometimes the most simple approach is best. The rest is mearly spin.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Quite a Week for Democrats and Ethics