Nov 8, 2016 - The lesser of two evils?
- Thread starter TX Redman
- Start date
- Status
Question: if optics were a consideration couldn't he have just quietly denied the funding request? Answer: yes. Question: would the media have made just as big a stink? Answer: yes. Question: when Bill Clinton fired William Session at the recommendation of mass murderer Janet Reno did the media posit vast conspiracy theories as to why? Answer: I won't insult your intelligence by answering, but I'll quote out first black president on his decision: "It is time that this difficult chapter in the agency's history is brought to a close."
Good grief, you managed to package a lot of stupid into two sentences. No offense intended obviously. In the first place, that you think a superior firing a subordinate is "indefensible" is a tell. Because that happens every day. So absent bias, it's not indefensible, it's mundane. Your characterization of an every day occurrence as "indefensible" in the absence of nefarious motive - and those of your political persuasion have been calling for Comey's ouster for nearly a year, because people of your political persuasion have until recently blamed Comey for the repulsive Hillary Clinton's election woes - belies your bias; as opposed to my reaction, which is a shit-happens shrug. That some guy fired some other guy isn't news, absent other facts, none of which exist.
More commonly when a person tried to defend the indefensible they don't cite precedent, they lie and dissemble. People who defend the Holocaust don't cite Middle Age pogrom as justification, they claim it never happened or that the victims deserved it. People who defend slavery in the US under Millard Fillmore don't bring up the policies of Zachary Taylor. They don't say slavery should be legal because slavery was legal in Egypt. They don't say women should be denied the vote today because women were denied the vote in Macedonia. Quite the opposite: they cite antediluvian and phantasmagorical and absurd theories about genetics or phrenology. So to that extent you're talking nonsense.
And to complete the nonsense: more often when people bring up things from the past it's not to defend the incongruous or indefensible in the present, it's to defend the normalcy of the past. People who think murder is bad cite the ten commandments. People who think all people are deserving of civil rights cite the constitution or natural law. Which past is in fact what the entirety majesty of the law is based upon: that normalcy today is predicated upon what happened prior to what happened today. It's called the common law and it's the basis of civilization and society.
Other than that you make some good points.
It sometimes takes me several paragraphs to explain myself because I apply logic and reason to facts. It's called thinking critically and you should try it sometime, as opposed to the knee jerk political hackery you and your ilk display. I could I suppose rely solely on sanctimony, name calling and and exclamation points!!!! - the left's rhetorical go to's - but I don't find them compelling.
Spocky Ramone
Well-known member
Schroeder is Fun's muse. Rumor has it there's a bust of Beethoven on the keyboard at Weasel concerts.
Regardless of your politics, the following two facts will effectively ensure more doubt, instability, hate and division.
*]eff Sessions and Donald Trump being in charge of hiring the next FBI Director
*Kris Kobach heading the new Commission on Election Integrity.
*]eff Sessions and Donald Trump being in charge of hiring the next FBI Director
*Kris Kobach heading the new Commission on Election Integrity.
- Status