Posted on 01/04/2002 8:52:30 AM PST by editor-surveyor
The debate of issue here had seem to be going pretty well until your posts and insults appeared .. and totally threw it off topic
But as you stated this is a public board and you have the right post anything you wish .. just don't expect others to take to kindly to insults .. that's all
Now I am off .. if you want to flame me .. do as you wish ... because I am now the one who could care less
I think I can help. There are gradients to doing bad things. There's negligence, harm, mistreatment, abuse, malevolence and evil. Hitler was evil. Saying Hitler is corrupt is a gross understatement and insult to Jews. You get the drift.
No doubt you've heard the term, "voting for the lesser of two evils". Voting for the lesser of two "evils" begets "evil". Evil in quotes because few are actually evil. Almost every member of congress is corrupt for the simple reason that congress is corrupt. When you think about it, saying a senator or representative is corrupt is stating the obvious. Plus it will be expected of you to back up your claim with reasoned argument.
Many of your opponents are comfortable making emotional based arguments. Going head to head against that is an uphill battle. You can win them over if they're at least willing to learn but you'll likely face many emotional arguments that will be up to you to debunk. Not to mention it's up to you to keep pulling the discussion back on track.
Rather using a seemingly moral based terminology such as corrupt and evil, I recommend using "ignorance" and "incompetent". Both are quantifiable. Ignorance is lack of pertinent knowledge while incompetence is unqualified for the task, project or job. The real nifty thing about using those is you don't necessarily have to identify which one is the failing of the object/senator/politician/bureaucrat.
For example; why did the Senator vote in favor of another unconstitutional gun law? I don't know whether he did it out of ignorance or just plain incompetence but clearly he is unqualified to be a Senator. Unless we consider...
I can carry that further because I have differentiated among objects and quantified them. I'll continue where I left off... Unless we consider that he is actually corrupt because congress is corrupt, but that is stating the obvious as we know that it is congress that empowers the bureaucratic alphabet agencies of the Executive branch in which we are lucky if we are able to get even one unconstitutional law before the Supreme Court to be overturned for every twenty unconstitutional laws passed by congress. Clearly we are loosing the battle and we can't expect to win anytime soon if we keep chasing after laws that are but the symptoms/sores of a much more perverse disease/cancer that is outpacing our band-aid relief efforts. It's a disease/cancer. That's The Problem. I've set my sights on the goal and am working on a solution to The Problem.
Using 'ignorance' and 'incompetence' will help you to quantify. After a little practice you can begin to take on additional objects and differentiate between them quantifiably.
We've got to give them credit - the Clintons are the most developed, devious criminals America has ever seen. They are both lawyers who are trained to recognize the fine line between legal and illegal and certainly know how to cover their tracks. They have committed untold crimes, yet they are too criminally savvy to leave blatant clues, witnesses, or substantiating evidence laying around. They had an entire administration of accomplices to assist them in their cover up of crimes - people so loyal (brainwashed) that they chose to leave the country or spend time in jail rather than testify against their cult leaders. They play dirty.
At this time, we don't know whether the Bush Administration is developing a case against them as we type, as it wouldn't be wise to give the Clintons advance warning so they could destroy and cover the next phase of any possible investigation. President Bush is known to play his hand close to his chest. He is also aware of how many of us feel about the Clintons. If they discover something concrete, evidence that couldn't be written off as a bureaucratic snafu or similarly swarmy excuse, I believe they would go for it. Yet, if all applicable evidence has been destroyed, if there is not a provable case, the administration would not be wise to persue this course.
We are fortunate to have one of the most highly qualified administrations ever amassed in our nation's history. I for one, have faith that they will continue to perform at the high standard we are currently witnessing. If they happen to nail the Clintons while fighting a war on terror, fighting the Daschle's of the world, and running a country on schedule, that will be icing on the cake.
Love,
Quilla
God Bless President Bush.
I'm sorry to see him give in to this.
I'd rather see a response like - "Clean up your own act - the bias is on the liberal side - not here."
I'd like to disabuse one and all of the notion that O'reilly is in any way a conservative, he is a Globalist, top to bottom, inside, and out.
I would consider Bush one of the best Presidents ever
IF he investigated, and prosecuted the wrong-doing of,
Bill Clinton, the Justice Department, the FBI, etc.
If he fulfilled the major duty of any President,
upholding the Rule of Law,
he would have my undying support,
and he would have my respect.
As for Bill .. he is a friend of mine and I have much respect for him and his opinion regardless if I agree with him or not .. my intentions were not to jump on him .. but to understand his points better ..
I think and hope Bill feels the same
It is very clear from your posts that you never liked him and I doubt you ever will
Lets just face reality on this issue instead of beating our heads up against the wall
Florida had many instances of voter fraud, including the creators of the surplus "chads." Other states also had fraud problems.
There were no charges filed. Just a lot of talk about the need for "reform."
1274 posted on 1/12/02 10:02 PM Central by exodus
exactly, that's all there ever is, a lot of talk.
To: exodus
"...Almost every member of congress is corrupt
for the simple reason that congress is corrupt.
When you think about it, saying a senator
or representative is corrupt is stating the obvious...
Rather using a seemingly moral based terminology such as corrupt and evil,
I recommend using "ignorance" and "incompetent..."
For example; why did the Senator vote in favor of another unconstitutional gun law?
I don't know whether he did it out of ignorance or just plain incompetence
but clearly he is unqualified to be a Senator.
Unless we consider...
Using 'ignorance' and 'incompetence' will help you to quantify.
After a little practice you can begin to take on additional objects
and differentiate between them quantifiably."
1383 by Zon
************************
Congressman Ron Paul of Texas is not corrupt..
"Congress is corrupt" is not an excuse for corruption.
The act of doing an un-Constitutional thing
justifies the charge of corruption.
Any Congressman who votes for a gun control law qualifies.
There is no "ignorance" strong enough to avoid the charge of "corruption."
There is no "incompetence" strong enough to avoid the charge of "corruption."
The Soviet Union was based upon ignorance,
and typified by incompetence.
It was still evil.
Just as Ronald Reagan called "evil" when he saw it,
even against the advice of his advisors,
so will I will call "corruption" when I see it.
On the other hand...he seems to be heading down the liberal line (dreaming) on things like SUV's. His solution, of course, is government.
Stupidity is the first thing to consider.
Gail Norton isn't stupid.
Ignorance is next.
Gail Norton isn't ignorant, I'm sure you'll agree.
Next we consider incompetence.
Incompetence doesn't require stupidity, or ignorance.
You can be smart and knowlegable and still be incompetent,
if you don't have a talent for the job.
Gail Norton might be incompetent.
That was my first argument.
IF she's not incompetent,
she is corrupt.
She might even be "evil."
You act like I made a snap decision
when Bush started running for President
Mo1, I'm a Texan.
He was my Governor.
Before that, he was always in the public eye.
I decided that I didn't like Bush
during the time he was governor.
He hasn't done anything as President to change my mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.