[Rhodes22-list] For Michael W., from South Carolina - political
R22RumRunner at aol.com
R22RumRunner at aol.com
Wed Sep 17 12:06:41 EDT 2008
Ed,
It's time to step down from your pulpit and take your medications.
Rummy
In a message dated 9/17/2008 9:27:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
ekroposki at charter.net writes:
Because some forms of cheating or stealing are within current law does not
make them right using traditional norms of right and wrong. Because Jamie
Garrelick and others were a members of the Clinton Administration and used
their influence after they left office does not make it right to be paid 75
million dollars.
There is right and wrong when public funds are invoved. The boards of these
organizations were controlled or influenced by those in public office. I
believe a good case should be made against all of them from criminal
charges, but just to get the issues public, go for 'Unjust Enrichment' or
something. Put real sunshine on the issues and people.
That is not Marxist, but right or wrong.
So, then you think it is right for insiders to make millions and not be
subject to scrutiny? I think the president should pardon Eliot Spitzer for
sexual escapades and appoint him special prosecutor [as long as his wife has
him on a leash]. Put him where he has a sucessful track record. Imagine
that!
Ed K
Greenville, SC, USA
R22MikeW wrote:
>
> Ed,
>
> You want to sue "unjust enrichment"? That seems to smack of a Marxist
> viewpoint. I am shocked!
>
> Mike
> s/v Shanghaid'd Summer ('81)
> Nissequogue River, NY
>
>
> From: "Tootle" <ekroposki at charter.net>Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008
> 8:49 AM
>>
>> Ben referencec the following article alledging it was written by a
>> conservative and 'Bill Buckley protege.'
>>
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16brooks.html?hp
>>
>> What is a conservative? To Ben C., from his rigid and blindfolded view,
>> it
>> is one thing. He keeps referencing a group of people as 'the
>> anti-intellectual wackos and fundamentalist nut cases', as if his
>> viewpoint
>> was perfect.
>>
>> I am reserving the comment to define conservative, neo-conservative, but
>> I
>> am responding to his reference to David Brooks' and the New York Times.
>> When you move from the northeast corner of the USA you find Americans who
>> believe that "all the news that is fit to print" is not now nor has been
>> for
>> several decades an accurate description of the New York Times. The
>> people
>> who write for the New York Times are MSM, ‘Main Stream Media’. David
>> Brooks
>> is MSM.
>>
>> This type of person is like Chris Matthews who gets tingles up his leg
>> over
>> Obama. Chris Matthews has in the past made demeaning and derogatory
>> comments about people willing to do menial jobs. These people have
>> developed a holier than thou attitude. The come across as saying that
>> their
>> opinion is more right than others. So, for the rest of us, those that
>> quote
>> them as authorities of correct opinions must be viewed as fellow
>> travelers.
>>
>> David Brooks said, “If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt
>> establishment, she’d be your woman.” While the rest of the article
>> bashed
>> her and her supporters, this quote is what many of us want. We want
>> someone
>> to make a real effort to reduce and find corruption and wrong doing.
>>
>> Furthermore, we want to reduce those who use legal methods to fill their
>> pockets. This is illustrated in the Fannie May and Freddie Mack issue.
>> There are many who made millions of dollars using legal methods
>> associated
>> with these institutions. They made these monies by acting as
>> consultants,
>> lobbyists, lawyers, etc. for these institutions. The monies paid these
>> people exceed reasonable compensation to most Americans.
>>
>> Because something is legal does not make it right. These people should
>> be
>> sued for ‘unjust enrichment’ if nothing they did was illegal. Maybe
such
>> a
>> law suit would not win, but their activities and methods would become
>> more
>> public. They would be exposed to ‘Sunshine’.
>>
>> The argument is offered that both Democrats and Republicans are involved.
>> So what? Expose the truth about all of them. I guess lawyers like Ben
>> C.,
>> would find employment defending their actions. I would prefer that they
>> be
>> placed on public exhibition in from of the courthouse is a cage.
>>
>> Again, because something is legal does not make it right. “Making right
>> choices in gray areas is difficult. To be aware of the dilemma is not
>> enough. There needs to be a moral sensitivity which remembers to ask
>> the
>> right questions at the right time. To know what is good is not enough?
>> There is a difference between waking up and getting up. There must be
>> specific decision for the right. To be sensitive and aware is good. To
>> make proper decisions is better. The way of victory is to maintain a
>> moral
>> stamina which continues.” Paraphrase of Bryan Crenshaw
>>
>> Ed K
>> Greenville, SC, USA
>>
>>
>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16brooks.html?hp
>>>
>>> What is a conservative? To Ben C., from his ridgid and blind folded
>>> view,
>>> it is one thing. He keeps referencing a group of people as 'the
>>> anti-intellectual wackos and fundamentalist nut cases', as if his
>>> viewpoint was perfect.
>>>
>>> I am reserving the comment to define conservative, neo-conservative, but
>>> I
>>> am responding to his reference to David Brooks' and the New York Times.
>>> When you move from the northeast corner of the USA you find Americans
>>> who
>>> believe that "all the news that is fit to print" is not now nor has been
>>> for several decades a accurate description of the New York Times. The
>>> people who write for the New York Times are MSM, Main Stream Media.
>>>
>>> This type of person is like Chris Matthews who gets tingles up his leg
>>> over Obama. Chris Matthews has in the past made demeaning and
>>> derogatory
>>> comments about people willing to do menial jobs.
>>>
>>> Robert;
>>>
>>> The above link is to today's NY Times column by David Brooks, who you
>>> may
>>> recognize as the William F. Buckley protege' and conservative
>>> commentator.
>>> It concisely sets out the problem with Palin that those of us who
>>> represent the dying breed of "Rockefeller Republicans" (the political
>>> philosophy of your Susan Collins and Olympia Snow) have.
>>>
>>> As the Party falls away to the anti-intellectual wackos and
>>> fundamentalist
>>> nut cases (and they know who they are) we can only hope that the
>>> overwhelming support of the new politics of hope among the youth (under
>>> 40) folks will bode better for the future.
>>>
>>> Even though I hail from the Great State of New Jersey, home of John
>>> Basilone (hero of Guadalcanal), I still consider the greatest American
>>> hero to have been Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain (teacher, Governor, and
>>> hero
>>> of the 20th Maine).
>>>
>>> Fair winds and following seas.
>>>
>>> Ben C. , s/v Susan Kay. Highlands, NJ
>>>
>>> Robert Skinner wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ed,
>>>>
>>>> Since you persist in making snide comments about the great
>>>> state of Maine, this is to let you know that you have real
>>>> opposition in Maine -- perhaps neither as bombastic,
>>>> prevaricative, nor monomaniacal as you might find among
>>>> your neocon fellow traveler comrade dittoheads, but at
>>>> least equally valid [understatement]. As a professional
>>>> musician once reminded me, volume is no substitute for
>>>> quality. And, by the way, repetition is no substitute for
>>>> logic.
>>>>
>>>> I, for one, am paying attention to the issues, primarily
>>>> the gone-to-hell-in-a-handbasket state of the nation while
>>>> in the care (using the term loosely) of the Grumpy Old
>>>> Patriarchs, and the fact that a good house-cleaning could
>>>> not produce any worse results. As I see it, any group
>>>> of teen-age mutant turtles could do better and cost a hell
>>>> of a lot less.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't make a lot of difference who is the master of
>>>> the ship of state when it is on the rocks. The question
>>>> is who can get it off in one piece.
>>>>
>>>> OK, now that I've had my turn, you can have the soap-box
>>>> back, Ed. Please clean up after you are done, and put
>>>> the seat down.
>>>>
>>>> /Robert
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/
>>>> Wednesday 10 September 2008
>>>> by: Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic
>>>>
>>>> Editor's Note: Historically a John McCain supporter, conservative
>>>> journalist
>>>> and blogger Andrew Sullivan takes on the issue of John McCain's
>>>> integrity
>>>> as
>>>> he strives to win the presidency. - vh/TO
>>>>
>>>> For me, this surreal moment - like the entire surrealism of the
>>>> past
>>>> ten days - is not really about Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or pigs or
>>>> fish
>>>> or lipstick. It's about John McCain. The one thing I always thought I
>>>> knew
>>>> about him is that he is a decent and honest person. When he knows, as
>>>> every
>>>> sane person must, that Obama did not in any conceivable sense mean that
>>>> Sarah Palin is a pig, what did he do? Did he come out and say so and
>>>> end
>>>> this charade? Or did he acquiesce in and thereby enable the mindless
>>>> Rovianism that is now the core feature of his campaign?
>>>> So far, he has let us all down. My guess is he will continue to
>>>> do
>>>> so.
>>>> And that decision, for my part, ends whatever respect I once had for
>>>> him.
>>>> On
>>>> core moral issues, where this man knew what the right thing was, and
>>>> had
>>>> to
>>>> pick between good and evil, he chose evil. When he knew that George W.
>>>> Bush's war in Iraq was a fiasco and catastrophe, and before Donald
>>>> Rumsfeld
>>>> quit, McCain endorsed George W. Bush against his fellow Vietnam vet,
>>>> John
>>>> Kerry in 2004. By that decision, McCain lost any credibility that he
>>>> can
>>>> ever put country first. He put party first and his own career first
>>>> ahead
>>>> of
>>>> what he knew was best for the country.
>>>> And when the Senate and House voted overwhelmingly to condemn and
>>>> end
>>>> the torture regime of Bush and Cheney in 2006, McCain again had a clear
>>>> choice between good and evil, and chose evil.
>>>> He capitulated and enshrined torture as the policy of the United
>>>> States, by allowing the CIA to use techniques as bad as and worse than
>>>> the
>>>> torture inflicted on him in Vietnam. He gave the war criminals in the
>>>> White
>>>> House retroactive immunity against the prosecution they so richly
>>>> deserve.
>>>> The enormity of this moral betrayal, this betrayal of his country's
>>>> honor,
>>>> has yet to sink in. But for my part, it now makes much more sense. He
>>>> is
>>>> not
>>>> the man I thought he was.
>>>> And when he had the chance to engage in a real and substantive
>>>> debate
>>>> against the most talented politician of the next generation in a fall
>>>> campaign where vital issues are at stake, what did McCain do? He began
>>>> his
>>>> general campaign with a series of grotesque, trivial and absurd
>>>> MTV-style
>>>> attacks on Obama's virtues and implied disgusting things about his
>>>> opponent's patriotism.
>>>> And then, because he could see he was going to lose, ten days
>>>> ago,
>>>> he
>>>> threw caution to the wind and with no vetting whatsoever, picked a
>>>> woman
>>>> who, by her decision to endure her own eight-month pregnancy of a Down
>>>> Syndrome child in public, that he was going to reignite the culture war
>>>> as a
>>>> last stand against Obama. That's all that is happening right now: a
>>>> massive
>>>> bump in the enthusiasm of the Christianist base. This is pure Rove.
>>>> Yes, McCain made a decision that revealed many appalling things
>>>> about
>>>> him. In the end, his final concern is not national security. No one who
>>>> cares about national security would pick as vice-president someone who
>>>> knows
>>>> nothing about it as his replacement. No one who cares about this
>>>> country's
>>>> safety would gamble the security of the world on a total unknown
>>>> because
>>>> she
>>>> polled well with the Christianist base. No person who truly believed
>>>> that
>>>> the surge was integral to this country's national security would pick
>>>> as
>>>> his
>>>> veep candidate a woman who, so far as we can tell anything, opposed it
>>>> at
>>>> the time.
>>>> McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not
>>>> have
>>>> the character to be president of the United States. And that is why it
>>>> is
>>>> more important than ever to ensure that Barack Obama is the next
>>>> president.
>>>> The alternative is now unthinkable. And McCain - no one else - has
>>>> proved
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/1156080,091008ebertpalin.article
>>>>
>>>> Roger Ebert on Sarah Palin: The American Idol candidate
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> September 11, 2008
>>>>
>>>> BY ROGER EBERT Sun-Times Movie Critic [How appropriate!]
>>>>
>>>> I think I might be able to explain some of Sarah Palin's appeal. She's
>>>> the
>>>> 'American Idol' candidate. Consider. What defines an 'American Idol'
>>>> finalist? They're good-looking, work well on television, have a sunny
>>>> personality, are fierce competitors, and so talented, why, they're
>>>> darned
>>>> near the real thing. There's a reason 'American Idol' gets such high
>>>> ratings. People identify with the contestants. They think, Hey, that
>>>> could
>>>> be me up there on that show!
>>>>
>>>> My problem is, I don't want to be up there. I don't want a vice
>>>> president
>>>> who is darned near good enough. I want a vice president who is better,
>>>> wiser, well-traveled, has met world leaders, who three months ago had
>>>> an
>>>> opinion on Iraq. Someone who doesn't repeat bald- faced lies about
>>>> earmarks
>>>> and the Bridge to Nowhere. Someone who doesn't appoint Alaskan
>>>> politicians
>>>> to 'study' global warming, because, hello! It has been studied. The
>>>> returns
>>>> are convincing enough that John McCain and Barack Obama are darned near
>>>> in
>>>> agreement.
>>>>
>>>> I would also want someone who didn't make a teeny little sneer when
>>>> referring to 'people who go to the Ivy League.' When I was a teen I
>>>> dreamed
>>>> of going to Harvard, but my dad, an electrician, told me, 'Boy, we
>>>> don't
>>>> have the money. Thank your lucky stars you were born in Urbana and can
>>>> go
>>>> to
>>>> the University of Illinois right here in town.' So I did, very happily.
>>>> Although Palin gets laughs when she mentions the 'elite' Ivy League,
>>>> she
>>>> sure did attend the heck out of college.
>>>>
>>>> Five different schools in six years. What was that about?
>>>>
>>>> And how can a politician her age have never have gone to Europe? My dad
>>>> had
>>>> died, my mom was working as a book-keeper and I had a job at the local
>>>> newspaper when, at 19, I scraped together $240 for a charter flight to
>>>> Europe. I had Arthur Frommer's $5 a Day under my arm, started in
>>>> London,
>>>> even rented a Vespa and drove in the traffic of Rome. A few years
>>>> later,
>>>> I
>>>> was able to send my mom, along with the $15 a Day book.
>>>>
>>>> You don't need to be a pointy-headed elitist to travel abroad. You need
>>>> curiosity and a hunger to see the world. What kind of a person (who has
>>>> the
>>>> money) arrives at the age of 44 and has only been out of the country
>>>> once,
>>>> on an official tour to Iraq? Sarah Palin's travel record is that of a
>>>> provincial, not someone who is equipped to deal with global issues.
>>>>
>>>> But some people like that. She's never traveled to Europe, Asia,
>>>> Africa,
>>>> South America or Down Under? That makes her like them. She didn't go to
>>>> Harvard? Good for her! There a lot of hockey moms who haven't seen
>>>> London,
>>>> but most of them would probably love to, if they had the dough. And
>>>> they'd
>>>> be proud if one of their kids won a scholarship to Harvard.
>>>>
>>>> I trust the American people will see through Palin, and save the
>>>> Republic
>>>> in
>>>> November. The most damning indictment against her is that she
>>>> considered
>>>> herself a good choice to be a heartbeat away. That shows bad judgment.
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>>
http://www.nabble.com/For-Ed%2C-from-Maine---political-tp19503919p19531396.html
>> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/For-Ed%2C-from-Maine---political-tp19503919p19532119.html
Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
__________________________________________________
To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
http://www.rhodes22.org/list
__________________________________________________
**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list