Which is not an easy thing to do when one has one's head buried firmly up their ass, but rube manages to pull it off...I'm sorry, I can't understand you when you keep tripping over your own tongue.
OK, but if someone does something good (maybe even very good) and then something not so good (or questionable or whatever), are you saying the good works place him above reproach? I don't think it does; people are complex and most do some good and some not so good things. As I have said a number of times, personally I don't care how much he gets or who he chooses to associate (unless he violates the law) with because I expected no more of him, but that doesn't place him somehow above criticism, nor does it mean that those who dare to raise even a question are somehow the tools of, or deluded by, the right.Scooter wrote:"Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Someone was quoted as saying that once. I think there are a few billion people who believe he knew what he was talking about.Big RR wrote:Good for them, but it's apples and oranges to try and compare the two very different things.
Please do not misquote (or misunderstand) me; I have never said the acceptance "dirties" him--what I did said (and continue to say) is that his acceptance of the money from Wall Street has repercussions, and some of those repercussions are further disillusionment of the progressives who feel he should distance himself from, not cozy up to, Wall Street. I have also said that Wall Street is offering him this money for a reason, and I do not think it is because they want to hear what he says--they are expecting something more in return. Often this is access to others in government (and he is pretty wired in there), but it could be something a simple as driving a wedge between the progressives and the moderates in the democratic party, and personally I think he is being played exactly this way. Now he may do a lot of good with these speaking fees, but that does not eliminate the harm caused by his very public act.Scooter wrote:You are suggesting that somehow merely accepting the money from this source dirties him in some as yet unknown way. I am saying that what he does with the money is far better measure of the man than where it comes from.
Scooter wrote:I am saying that what he does with the money is far better measure of the man than where it comes from.
EXACTLY!!!" ... In the 1970s and 1980s the Unification Church sponsored the International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences (ICUS),[3][4] in order to promote the concept of the unity of science and religion.[5][6] American news media have suggested that the conferences were also an attempt to improve the often controversial public image of the church.[7][8] The first conference, held in 1972, had 20 participants; while the largest conference, in Seoul, South Korea in 1982, had 808 participants from over 100 countries.[9] Participants in one or more of the conferences included Nobel laureates John Eccles (Physiology or Medicine 1963, who chaired the 1976 conference)[4] and Eugene Wigner (Physics 1963).[10] ... "
Econoline wrote:Scooter wrote:I am saying that what he does with the money is far better measure of the man than where it comes from.
LMAOSo, to you, a Mafia Capo who gives to charity his ill-gotten gains is a moral person? The Borgias were VERY good at that, btw.
The biggest problem with that is that it ignores the fallout that will be generated based on where a public figure gets the money from; indeed, being seen with a public figure can buy someone significant legitimacy even if the public figure does not do anything more for the person providing the money. Likewise, in the political arena, the fallout can be far more serious; would you be as sanguine if Obama accepted money from Putin trying to buy the same legitimacy? Also, inevitably these sorts of exchanges result in the money provider asking for more and more, and the recipient reluctantly providing it as (s)he becomes seduced by the money. As I said, some may try and beat the devil at his own game and use the money for good, but this rarely works--it didn't for Faust and it hasn't for many before Obama.I am saying that what he does with the money is far better measure of the man than where it comes from.
Now-a-days they call it "entitlements".One way that corrupt governments cement their rule is by the bestowing of 'gifts' from the ruler to his supporters.
A bribe is a bribe no matter what it is called.The giving of gifts between heads of state in pre-democratic Europe was always with the expectation of changing the behavior of the recipient.
Seems you think that way also.When we give generous tips to restaurants we frequent often we expect, and receive, better treatment. The charities we support at a higher level respond with very kind handwritten letters and invitations to future events and personal meetings with officials. and if they didn't would you give them less or nothing at all next time? I gave him a nice bottle of wine for his birthday with no thought of reciprocation in advance but later realized that he would not be able NOT to reciprocate; he thought that receiving the gift entailed an obligation.
Not sure how you get that; based on his pension alone (and not his benefits or office allowances, etc.), he makes in a year about 100 times the maximum SSI disability benefit (a little under $2600 a month). Thus, it would take a cheat 8 years + to make what he makes in a year.As far as his pension is concerned, he served as president, thus under the law he earned his pension. Leave it alone. More money has been pilfered by a single disability cheat
I can't produce the link (blocked here at work) but this is what I put in google:Investigators busted 11 LIRR workers Thursday for bilking the railroad and taxpayers out of a staggering $1 billion by faking disabilities.
