|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2007 : 08:20:24 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo wrote: You might not agree with the death penalty, but I'd say a lot of people here would think it would be a good idea to at least put away someone who murdered as many as Clinton. Why is there no outcry? Why are people paying to hear him speak? Why are people considering making him and his wife even richer by voting for her?
Because he didn't kill Americans. |
The reasons why there is no outcry about Clinton's military actions extends far beyond the fact that he didn't kill Americans.
Gorgo, you seem to regard the moral part of your worldview as objective, and have become rather self-righteous about it. You throw words around such as "murder". Clinton didn't murder anyone. Murder is illegal and unjustified killing. Now I see that you regard Clinton's military actions as unjustified and that they should be considered illegal, but you alone are not the sole judge of human ethics and morality. In fact, your moral worldview is extreme compared to most peoples'. That might frustrate you, but until you not only accept it, but also try to better understand the basis for the opinions of others who disagree with you and thus be equip to building connections with those others, you will be perceived as nothing but whiney and out of touch.
This discussion is rather stupid for its vagueness and narrowness. I don't think anyone here will despute the fact that Clinton did the things listed in the original quote posted by gorgo. My response to that (as someone who actually pays attention to what's going on) is sarcasm: What? Saint Bill did a lot of nasty shit with his presidential power? Whoa, man, that's, like, not cool and shit.
I share your outrage about Clinton's military actions. I find them disgusting. I've thought for years that he was a shitty president, and it annoys me when I ask Clinton-supportive liberals why they like him so well, and they can't give an articulate answer. That said, he isn't president anymore, and there is a lot of bad shit going on right now. I am only one person and there are only so many hours in a day. I don't see how it serves to better anything to wage a justice crusade against Bill Clinton. For one thing, there is not enough public support for such a movement. And more importantly, it takes away from dealing with the problems at hand.
I'll end by repeating my own version of GeeMack's question: What action exactly are you calling for in this post, gorgo? What are you saying we as individuals on this forum should do?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/11/2007 08:20:46 |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2007 : 08:22:43 [Permalink]
|
OT wrote: | Yep, be part of the problem. |
Oh please. With regards to voting or throwing any other support toward a presidential candidate, here are your options:
-vote for/support a Republican whose "good" qualities (in your own opinion) outshine the "bad" ones.
-vote for/support a Democrat whose "good" qualities (in your own opinion) outshine the "bad" ones.
-Cast a symbolic vote for a third party candidate
-Don't vote out of disgust or apathy
None of these are nice options. This is why most people pussy out of even thinking or learning about politics, and then often don't even realize how a current political policy or situation is hurting them.
I voted for Nader in 2000 largely because I was disgusted with the Clinton presidency and had the same doubts about Gore due to many things in his record. Of course I hated and feared the idea of a Bush president even more, but my state at the time (Ohio) was clearly going to Bush, so it didn't matter if I cast a third party vote. Despite my clearly calculate rational decision, my irrational Democrat family will never stop harping on me about it and deluding themselves into thinking that I helped get Bush elected. Last election I supported Carol Mosely Braun in the primary until she pulled out, and then ended up voting to Kucinich. I will likely vote for Denny again this primary, and then vote for Obama or Hilary, or whoever wins the primary when it comes down to the big election.
Anyway, my point in saying all this about my own personal decisions about voting is this: none of it really mattered in the big picture. The things I do that matter in the big picture are things that touch more people in both my local and larger community. People who only vote are about as useless as those who don't even bother to do that. Civic duty is much broader than any candidate or election, even if it is the President of the USA.
That's my verbose was of saying that filthy ain't being part of any problem.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/11/2007 08:25:00 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 08/11/2007 : 09:14:46 [Permalink]
|
I'm seeking your response regarding a practical, reasonable solution to your problem with Bill Clinton.
|
I understand your fears regarding your own personal inability to communicate. You mention it all the time.
I expect what any reasonable person would expect. I would expect investigations into criminal conduct and some kind of prosecution. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2007 : 09:38:03 [Permalink]
|
I'll end by repeating my own version of GeeMack's question: What action exactly are you calling for in this post, gorgo? What are you saying we as individuals on this forum should do?
|
It is a violation of international law to invade other countries. It is a violation of the UN Charter. The U.S. is part of the U.N., therefore it has agreed to the UN Charter. The Constitution makes the UN Charter, the law of the land. Thus, it is a violation of international law, and a violation of the Constitution.
That makes any resultant deaths murder. If he were to bomb your neighborhood for no good reason, you would call it murder. He bombed many neighborhoods, killing thousands of people. That is murder. Since he didn't bomb your neighborhood, you don't call it murder. However, he did agree to NAFTA, which impoverished many people, and probably caused more deaths. Where are the prosecutions? Why do you not call him a criminal? Why do you not think it strange that these people are not only not prosecuted, but worshipped and paid even more money? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2007 : 10:03:25 [Permalink]
|
gorgo wrote: | Why do you not think it strange that these people are not only not prosecuted, but worshipped and paid even more money? |
Because I know enough about human history and psychology to be aware of its many bizarre and hideous ironies.
Sure, I would call it murder if my town was bombed. And plenty of people who loved Sadam Hussein called it murder when he was executed. But again, I say that your perceptions are totally clouded by your own interpretations of laws and events. You also assume understanding and knowledge of other peoples' mindsets, which causes you to say/write outrageously condescending shit such as this statement toward GeeMack: | I understand your fears regarding your own personal inability to communicate. |
And you wonder why so many people here dismiss your outrage and think you are a jerk.
Like I said before, until you actually try to perceive and interpret these things from other peoples' points of view, you will come off as whiny and out of touch. These things which so upset you only upset you because of YOUR PERSONAL values. And yet you expect them to cause outrage in others, despite the fact that morality and ethics are subjective and highly influenced by constantly changing social norms.
Your call to have Clinton prosecuted for his crimes is met with apathy here not necessarily because people on this forum think what Clinton did was justifiable, but because it is absurd given the current social context. The task of inspiring a sense of outrage against Clinton's military actions in the mainstream public, and then getting Bill Clinton prosecuted for those actions, is impossible. Even if everyone on this forum suddenly decided to devote their lives and passion to the task, we could not achieve it. And there are other problems in the world that we actually can help solve, so why the hell would we allow ourselves to give two shits about this issue?
You can sit around encouraging your heart bleed for very action which leads to human suffering, but if you do so, you will feel nothing but anger, sorrow, and outrage. That is why our psychology allows us to not feel sympathy for suffering that is far away and happening to people we don't know or see. There needs to be balance between altruism and selfishness, gorgo, or else all the people with compassion and sympathy for others would end up miserable and powerless themselves, and then nothing would ever improve. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/11/2007 10:04:25 |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2007 : 16:27:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I voted for Nader in 2000 largely because...
|
Ah-hah! Bush is your fault!
;) |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2007 : 17:22:57 [Permalink]
|
Here's a blatant example using a moral dilemma. It is likely that everyone here would feel that Adolf Hitler was very immoral and evil, whereas Winston Churchill was shrewd and basically moral.
I may be wrong but I get the feeling that Gorgo's ridged way of moralizing if applied to Winston Churchill might describe Churchill as a war criminal. Duriing WWII Churchill was one of the select few who knew that Britain had cracked German enigma code machine. From this, the British knew that the Luftwaffe was going to bomb the city of Coventry. However, if Churchill ordered the mass evacuation of Coventry, German agents would be tipped off and Germany would change the code. This would lead to further disasters for the Allies. Churchill drank, smoked and lost sleep, but could do nothing about this.
Now earlier, England did initiate a nationwide program of moving children to homes outside the cities and relocating some factories as part of the overall war effort, and this saved some lives, and with the later V-1 flying bomb attacks, the BBC would deliberately announce misleading news about the damaged areas so the Germans would listen and wrongly adjust their targeting so that some V-1s would actually be striking even further out of town, but the real reason was to minimize casualties while not over-reacting to the enigma code deciphering, and instead use the enigma data to counteract German military moves on the battlefield, so before the Coventry bombing raid, Churchill couldn't alert the all citizens of Coventry.
Then there is the later RAF fire bombing of the German city of Dresden, which resulted in massive civilian casualties. The point of all this is if someone were to say that Churchill was a "war criminal" it would be without the slightest context of history or surrounding circumstances, and only through Olympian standards of ignorant moralistic dogma.
This is not a comparison of Churchill with Clinton or any other US president. I just don't see an historic context in Grogo's tirade which actually pins Bill Clinton down as a true war criminal or profiteer. I don't think he was privy to the pre-9/11 planning for the invasion of Iraq as Bush and Cheney were.
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2007 : 17:31:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo...
I understand your fears regarding your own personal inability to communicate. You mention it all the time. |
Of course I've never mentioned a personal inability to communicate, so you're a liar, Gorgo. It is true that you appear to have seriously sub-par communication skills, so you may be projecting again. But I'll admit there are other possibilities which might explain your general dickheadedness. Might be like Dude mentioned, that you're just a whiner, unwilling or unable to participate in a productive conversation. But let's give it another try, shall we?
| I expect what any reasonable person would expect. I would expect investigations into criminal conduct and some kind of prosecution. |
Expect that all you want, little man, but really, it's not going to happen. And actually you're wrong. No reasonable person would expect that. Though that might be the gist of your problem, Gorgo; maybe you're just not a reasonable person. And of course your reply, once again, didn't address the question at all. Your irrational expectations have nothing to do with a reasonable, considered solution.
The question was, "So what would you suggest as a reasonable course of action to resolve what you perceive to be the problems with Bill Clinton?" I followed with an attempt to accommodate your communication problem and rephrased that as, "I'm seeking your response regarding a practical, reasonable solution to your problem with Bill Clinton." Then marfknox suggested her version of the question, "What action exactly are you calling for in this post, Gorgo? What are you saying we as individuals on this forum should do?" So could you try to understand what we're asking, then make an effort to address the actual question?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Good Old Bill, the Liberal Hero
Topic Locked
