I have known officers in the military that no why in hell they could have cheated on their wifes. No way
Yes and in the office next to theirs is another officer who does it every day. The woman's assertion is obviously incorrect, as is most any assertion that ALL of any group behave a certain way. On the other hand some examples of people who are straight arrows does not negate the fact that people of standing often take advantage of their underlings.
When MJF fund out he had the disease, it became something real to him, not an abstract thing. He finds himself in a position to help others in his condition. To digress a moment, Polio is an awful thing. I remember the iron lungs and kids in braces when I was young. But I never knew anyone with polio. It still exists, but I have to admit I don't do anything about it. And charitable gestures on my part are currently directed elsewhere. If a friend or family member came back from Africa with polio, it might alter my personal priorities. I might be more active in the fight against polio. Not because it never mattered before, nor because I needed people to look at me different. It would be a result of life having its effects upon me. So it is unfair when people criticize MJF for not having been a PArkinsons activist before he came down with it. Whatever he did before, having the disease opened his eyes to it. Just as getting arrested for drunk driving can open your eyes to your own drinking problem. Ever notice how the awareness of school security increases after something like Columbine?
So here he is stumping for a candidate. You can look at it two ways. You could say: Gee, MJF has a candidate he wants to win for some selfish purpose and he thinks "GOLLY, I've got this disease we can exploit." Or you can think: Gee MJF wants more efforts to cure Parkinsons and this candidate would be in a position to help the cause if he is elected so he is trying to help that to happen.
So there it is. The candidate is the priority and the disease is merely a tool. OR The disease issue is the priority and the candidate is merely the tool.
Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:11 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you read all the fucked up hate the left has:
http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/threa ... m=Page%3D1 Christ, this country is going to hell if Hillary gets elected president.
Oh please, some post on a discussion biard is evidence of nothing. Why don't you go to Ann Coulter sites or Laura Ingraham sites and read all the fucked up hate the right has. Or just tune in your radio to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity some afternoon and you can listen to the hate for hours on end all from the right.
But the question I have now is what exactly do you think will happen in this country if Hillary gets elected? The country certainly didn't go to hell when Bill was president. Whatever disagreements you have with his policies or personal behaviors, the nation did pretty well. Just what will the amazing problems be? She gonna start another pointless war like the one he got now? There gonna be bread lines from the 99% unemployment? Terrorists blowing up a city every other day until all that is left is Waterloo Iowa - a city the terrorists chose for its name? MAybe taxes will go up to 120% of income? Baloney.
So in answer to the question: does anyone disagree? Yeah, I disagree. WOUld she be my pick for president? Probably not. But would the nation fall apart? Not even close. I didn't think the nation would fall apart when George W Bush was reelected either. Though I thought it was a grim day, we will survive and thrive.
Everyone is corrupt, as the potential for corruption resides in us all, but...an individual has morals without influence from a group (most of the time). So, it can be said that an individual is less corrupt then a group of people. But, here is the catch...an individual attempting to impress/get into the group either by popular vote, election, exc... are the most corrupt of all.
What do you guys think? Am I completely off the wall here?
I don't buy it. Self-interest is in us all, but that is not the same as corruption. Temptation is not a crime. If Jack Abramoff offers you a million dollars to vote one way or another, it might be appealing, but it is not corruption if you turn him down.
If you see someone drop a ten dollar bill in the store, it might cross your mind that you could pick it up and no one would be the wiser. But you don't, you pick it up and hand it to him, "Hey, you dropped this, man." You are not corrupt, you just went through a mental process we all do. Your own morals determined that course of action. Now what if some others were across the room and you realized when you picked up the ten that they saw you. Would you pocket that money if you thought those kids would think you were cool? Are your morals for sale? For ten bucks?
Politics by it very nature is about compromise, so to the ideologue compromising may look like selling out, but really it is how people with varying points of view get along.
So I don't buy ALL politicians are corrupt any more than I believe all of any group is any particular thing.