Looks like Obama has had enough of Charlie Rangel

[1billsfan]

Democratic headquarters NBC must have had clearance from their chairman to actually do their jobs...

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth...-against-rangel

 

Not because it's the "ethical" thing to do mind you, but because he's dragging their "political" party down heading into the 2010 midterm elections. This little commentary is brought to you by "Democrats for Hope and Change 2010".

[OCinBuffalo]

Brought to you by:

 

"The most ethical Congress...ever!"

[Magox]

I tell you what else is pathetic about this, is that CNN barely mentions anything about Rangel, but reports the hell out of the Ensign story. Of course FOX does the exact same thing, but what pisses me off the most is that CNN is seen from many as the "balanced" network, yet they do fact checks on SNL when they poke fun at BO or interrupt important interviews regarding the Afghanistan war with "BREAKING NEWS" regarding Rush being ousted on his bid.

 

The hypocrisy is growing, and most people don't even know it.

[OCinBuffalo]

The hypocrisy is growing, and most people don't even know it.

Nah...most people know it by now. The real question is: what are they going to do about it?

 

And, there is plenty of Republican hypocrisy as well. As in, death penalty good, abortion bad.

 

Hypocrisy is a natural consequence for anybody who puts political ideology ahead of reality, reason, common sense, and especially common human principles(as in, Stalin killing 30 million people is OK, because his ideology says so).

 

There is a big difference between principles(Murder is never OK) and values(I think its ok to take from the rich and give to the poor). When they are confused, or, when values are treated as though they are principles, hypocrisy ensues. Why? Because values are based on opinion, perspective, situations and conditions, which can change at any time and are therefore fallible, principles are not.

 

Treating others who don't agree with your values as though they are breaking with principles is not OK. Worse, pretending that your values = morality, gets you into big trouble. All of this crying wolf when it comes to race, economics, the environment and especially "ethics" has and will continue to get the Democrats into hot water. It's inevitable. The only question that remains is will people hold them accountable?

[blzrul]

I've seen the Rangel stuff on CNN for a long time...

[Magox]

I've seen the Rangel stuff on CNN for a long time...

Not nearly as much as Ensign

[PearlHowardman]

How bad is President Obama doing?

 

Just watch Keith Olberman on MSNBC weeknights at 8:00.

 

Keith is bummed, angry, disappointed, depressed, disgusted, almost disconsolate now that it's obvious that Obama is a sellout! All of Olberman's guests from Newsweek magazine, politico, etc (I don't remember their names) are equally depressed.

 

Especially as it relates to Obama's health care agenda.

 

How sad.

[Adam]

Hypocrisy is a natural consequence for anybody who puts political ideology ahead of reality, reason, common sense, and especially common human principles(as in, Stalin killing 30 million people is OK, because his ideology says so).

Does this make most americans professional hypocrites?

[OCinBuffalo]

Does this make most americans professional hypocrites?

Some, not most. The point is: those Americans who are willing to go along with "the party line", without any introspection or observance of the facts that don't support their arguments, are the reason we end up with the choice of: McCain or Obama.

[Taro T]

Nah...most people know it by now. The real question is: what are they going to do about it?

 

And, there is plenty of Republican hypocrisy as well. As in, death penalty good, abortion bad.

 

Hypocrisy is a natural consequence for anybody who puts political ideology ahead of reality, reason, common sense, and especially common human principles(as in, Stalin killing 30 million people is OK, because his ideology says so).

 

There is a big difference between principles(Murder is never OK) and values(I think its ok to take from the rich and give to the poor). When they are confused, or, when values are treated as though they are principles, hypocrisy ensues. Why? Because values are based on opinion, perspective, situations and conditions, which can change at any time and are therefore fallible, principles are not.

 

Treating others who don't agree with your values as though they are breaking with principles is not OK. Worse, pretending that your values = morality, gets you into big trouble. All of this crying wolf when it comes to race, economics, the environment and especially "ethics" has and will continue to get the Democrats into hot water. It's inevitable. The only question that remains is will people hold them accountable?

Sorry to pick out a minor point in your rant, but provided you aren't talking blanket "death penalty good", as there are very few situations where it is; I don't see how it is necessarily hypocritical to be opposed to the taking of innocent lives and in favor of allowing some true scum to meet their maker sooner than they would have otherwise. Or to cut Dellapelle some slack, to allow some true scum to become worm food.

[OCinBuffalo]

Sorry to pick out a minor point in your rant, but provided you aren't talking blanket "death penalty good", as there are very few situations where it is; I don't see how it is necessarily hypocritical to be opposed to the taking of innocent lives and in favor of allowing some true scum to meet their maker sooner than they would have otherwise. Or to cut Dellapelle some slack, to allow some true scum to become worm food.

I guess I am a bit of a purist on these two issues, and assisted suicide, because I see them all as intrinsically linked. All involve cold-blooded, systematic destruction of human life. We are either going to be for the possibility of systemic culling of our population, or we aren't. Once you justify one form of systematic death, you are opening the way for all the other forms.

 

Who gets to decide which "degree" of death is justified, and, who gets to decide who decides? And, in the end, how don't we end up with hypocrisy in one form or another? Worse, can we determine that death/abortion/suicide is never acceptable in any form? And, if "some" is acceptable, then how much is OK? Who decides that? And, worst of all, which law can be written that covers all situations, and all nuances, that perfectly deals with these issues? I say perfectly, because of all the laws the we create, shouldn't "death" laws be perfect?

[Taro T]

I guess I am a bit of a purist on these two issues, and assisted suicide, because I see them all as intrinsically linked. All involve cold-blooded, systematic destruction of human life. We are either going to be for the possibility of systemic culling of our population, or we aren't. Once you justify one form of systematic death, you are opening the way for all the other forms.

 

Who gets to decide which "degree" of death is justified, and, who gets to decide who decides? And, in the end, how don't we end up with hypocrisy in one form or another? Worse, can we determine that death/abortion/suicide is never acceptable in any form? And, if "some" is acceptable, then how much is OK? Who decides that? And, worst of all, which law can be written that covers all situations, and all nuances, that perfectly deals with these issues? I say perfectly, because of all the laws the we create, shouldn't "death" laws be perfect?

You won't come up w/ a law that covers ALL situations. That is why a death penalty law should be written extremely narrowly. Yes, some that "deserve to die" will end up (hopefully) w/ true life imprisonment, but there are crimes that do warrant the "ultimate" punishment.