dagblog - Comments for "IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE"

"Most politicians of both

oleeb — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 05:33:20 +0000

"Most politicians of both parties go into politics to do good."

I emphatically disagree with this and find it naive in the extreme. I see nothing to indicate that even a significant minority of politicians in both parties go into politics to do good for anything but themselves. The real difference between the two parties on this score is that the Republicans don't even attempt to lie about it and act as though "doing good" is a priority for them. As I've oft indicated, most of the officeholders today are simply professional elected officials who are careerist office holders and little more. They have no moral or ethical basis for their candidacies they simply want to be the guy in the middle of all the action who helps cut the deals and so on.

There are necessary compromises and then there are total sellouts. I think Democratic office holders have cornered the corruption market for selling out hands down! It isn't even remotely related to compromising for the public good. Democrats keep lying to their base that they are compromising when they never even fake fighting for the things they say they are for when running for office. That oughta be a pretty good clue for most of you who are determined to find ways to excuse the lying, corrupt Democrats of Washington, DC but you insist upon acting like that isn't completely out in the open at this point in history.

I don't say they are evil people I say they are corrupt and that is because they are.

Corrupt politicians only react to those that can bring them harm. They are contemptuous of those who support them unless they are people with lots and lots of money. Just look at how they operate! It simply could not be more clear! giving them a pass only serves to encourage more bad policy, bad goernment, bad legislation.

Evil's a tough word. As to

Flavius — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 20:22:48 +0000

In reply to So, on your theory of 'evil',

Evil's a tough word. As to moral wrongdoing.....joke

Jesus comes upon the crowd ready to stone the woman taken in adultry. Jesus:

Let ye who is without sin throw the first stone.

Stone whizzes past his head. Jesus:

Mom!

Ta-da! ;o)

we are stardust — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:19:05 +0000

In reply to I liked this poll result

Ta-da! ;o)

I liked this poll result

Obey — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:12:18 +0000

In reply to My brains are made

I liked this poll result linked from the comments of that diary

McClatchy-Marist Poll. Nov. 15-18, 2010. N=371 Democratic voters and Democratic-leaning independent voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 5.

“Do you want another Democrat to challenge Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for president in the 2012 primaries?”

11/15-18/10
Challenge Obama 45%
Do Not Challenge Obama 46%
Unsure 9%

The party is split on whether they want a primary challenge.

Got it; thanks. Stardust is

we are stardust — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:39:21 +0000

In reply to I just meant that it is one

Got it; thanks. Stardust is slow....but...at least she is slow...

I just meant that it is one

Obey — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:31:12 +0000

In reply to My brains are made

I just meant that it is one amongst other valid considerations, and in the case of Obama those other considerations undermine the view that there is any danger of weakening the Dem candidate for the general election.

My brains are made

we are stardust — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:14:49 +0000

In reply to I'd say no to the question in

My brains are made of gingerbread; if the concrete is Obama, what are you meaning then, mon ami philosophe?

I'll leave a link at my posterous...

I'd say no to the question in

Obey — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:51:23 +0000

In reply to Expand that, please? At

I'd say no to the question in the abstract. There might be cases where even 'seeking an alternative' to - much less oppose him or her - is in fact going to ruin the chances of the immoral, yet least evil, viable candidate in the general election. That is, it seems, the line of the Obama supporters around here.

I just don't think the abstract argument applies to the concrete case of Obama.

Expand that, please? At

we are stardust — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:23:48 +0000

In reply to So, on your theory of 'evil',

Expand that, please? At another site, we are in heavy discussion about that; I'd value your opinion. The subject, loosely, is: If Politician X is immoral (I get tripped up in what prepoderance of immoral acts constitutes an 'immoral' actor), then is citizen X acting immorally for not seeking an alternative to Politician X?

p.s. I know I don't buy Flavius's position. ;o)

So, on your theory of 'evil',

Obey — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 13:40:37 +0000

In reply to To a certain extent it's

So, on your theory of 'evil', anyone with a rationalization of their acts in moral terms is not evil.

I think that's too narrow.

Also, I don't think it's an argument about 'evil' vs 'good', it's an argument about 'blameworthy' vs 'not-blameworthy'. Decent people can be culpable of moral wrongdoing.