Sunday, March 18, 2007

Gonzalez Comment

While reading an article that invited members to comment, I came across a good one. For context sake, here's where it was.

Here is the comment that I found more than a little interesting.

by DrPaul on 03.18.2007 at 07:50 PM Gonzalez is an incompetent fool who should long ago have been fired. He did not call a grand jury to investigate Sandy Berger's theft of top secret documents at the obvious behest of Bill Clinton. He has not had Rep. Jefferson arrested despite the fact that two conspirators have pleaded guilty to bribing Jefferson, and the presence of 90K in marked bribe money in his freezer. He didn't indict Hillary for lying in front of a grand jury and impanel a grand jury to criminally investigate her possession of almost 1000 stolen FBI files. But Gonzalez did have Libby investigated by a grand jury for lying to a grand jury about a 'crime' that Fitsgerald was not able to establish was in fact a crime. Bush is an idiot and he has the same fatal weekness as his idiot father: namely, they surround themselves with cronies and then don't get rid of them when they misperform. Even worse, both of these morons refuse to fight back at Democrats who constantly try to smear and undermine them. It's always, "I don't want to get into name calling" or some crap like that. If Bush and the Republicans in Congress are going to behave like limp wristed punching bags, then they deserve to lose.

I never really thought too much about it as things went along. When you look at the sum total of the various events referenced by the commenter, you have to at least scratch your head.

Just an observation.


At 8:32 PM, Blogger Col. Hogan said...

Once a Republican is elected, it's "hang your spine at the door." I don't know what it is that causes Republicans to become craven cowards when elected, but if they don't start sticking up for themselves andcalling the Dems on their lawbreaking, they'll submerge themselves into the minority permanently.

At 9:12 PM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

It's simple, Herr Colonel ...

Once they get to Washington, they think they're Democrats.

What other explanation could there be?


At 10:29 PM, Blogger Ol' BC said...

I don't know if they think they are or want to try to garner some votes. They tend to forget NOT be a Democrat got them elected. There aren't that many Socialists in the U.S.yet.

At 4:44 PM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

There aren't that many Socialists in the U.S.yet.

I believe you're wrong on this one, Ol' BC.

The problems is that most of them are holding office in Washington, DC.


At 10:55 PM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

Doesn't anyone ever get tired of finger pointing? My god! It's their fault! No, it's their fault!

The Republicans blame the Democrats and the Democrats blame the Republicans. All I can gather from it is that they are all to blame for something!

Frankly, it makes me want to dig myself a hole and cover myself up. Anything to escape the never-ending blame game and the never-ending idiocy that is American politics.

At 11:15 PM, Blogger Col. Hogan said...

I mostly just lame wishy-washy moral relativists.

At 3:24 PM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

What does it mean to lame something? And frankly, morality is relative. Anyone who can see that every culture and subculture has its own moral sense and code of ethics, and can still say that morality is absolute is missing the forest for the trees, as it were.

At 8:38 PM, Blogger Col. Hogan said...

Relative to what?

Morality is absolutely not relative. Morality has an absolute standard: man's life. What's good for man's life is moral; what harms man's life is immoral.

Next time a thug wants to shoot you, take your money and rape your wife, go ahead--declare that his morality is just as good as yours. It might give your comfort in your final moments.....

At 8:27 PM, Blogger Sir Loin of Beef said...

Your argument is absurd. There is no moral standard about human life. And morality isn't relative to anything. When we speak of relative morality we speak of a concept that morality is impermanent and relative to the culture and situations that are most relevant at the time an act of moral importance is commited.

Your thug analogy is a fine one to start with. Is it moral to kill me? For me, no. I would consider it immoral. Now, suppose I was in fact a grave enemy. Perhaps he is then morally justified to kill me. The act does not change, that is, killing me. However, the situation and climate surrounding the act has changed and therefore changed the moral import of the action in question. Therefore, if a singular action commited in one instance is moral and in another instance the same action committed is immoral, we have a situation that perfectly describes moral relativism. There is no absolute concerning moral implications here. There is only the absolute of the action in question. Killing me.


Post a Comment

<< Home