Did Giuliani Misuse NYC $$?
Sounds fairly suspicious. Several trips to the Hamptons, where his girlfriend was living, apparently billed to obscure and unrelated NYC agencies.
Sounds fairly suspicious. Several trips to the Hamptons, where his girlfriend was living, apparently billed to obscure and unrelated NYC agencies.
posted by Winston Smith at
1:14 PM
11 Comments:
Sounds about right. But there is no guarantee that Rudy would lose a sleaze-a-thon to Hillary.
And well both sides know it. Sen. Obama stands in the wings.
Whatever.
Fallacy name: tu quoque.
True, if I'm arguing that because "everybody does it" makes it OK, which I'm not.
I think it stinks. The real question is how much stink we can reasonably put up with.
I acknowledged that Rudy probably did some dirt here. Moving on, I note that it's a pervasive problem, calling the significance of this particular dirt into question, or at least putting it into perspective.
Perspective is good in this world that is not black-and-white, and in this world where we tend to see black only when it happens on the opposite side of the aisle.
You are confusing *ad populum* with *ad hominem.*
I think the better move for you to make here would be this one:
In a two party system, there is a natural--almost inevitable--comparative judgment floating in the background at almost every point. Under such circumstances points like yours above can be seen as relevant.
I don't see how the black-and-white business is an issue here.
In a two party system, there is a natural--almost inevitable--comparative judgment floating in the background at almost every point.
OK. That might be what I'm saying, better put.
It disturbs me greatly that even apparently good apples like Obama [see above] and John McCain [Keating Five] have some muck in their basements. And Hillary v. Rudy would be a muckfest.
None of which will prevent either of us from pulling our appropriate levers, and that's what troubles me most.
"None of which will prevent either of us from pulling our appropriate levers, and that's what troubles me most."
1) False. Are you asserting that no amount of evidence of a candidate's immoral behavior will cause one to change one's opinion about which party's candidates are better? Maybe that's the case for you, but it's not for me, and I know it's not for WS.
2) The alleged fact that one does this clearly doesn't trouble you. If it did, you'd change so that you aren't so dogmatic anymore. Nothing's preventing you from changing and yet, you remain the same. That doesn't sound to me like someone who is truly troubled.
You sound more fatalistic, like you've accepted the idea that everyone's just going to see what they want to see and say what they're going to say, and that's how it is.
That's not how it has to be.
In my view, the ocean of petty corruptions that were the Clintons, and some of them touched Hillary herself [Tyson, Rose Law Firm], are enough to disqualify her from the thinking person's vote. But since I wasn't in the mood to start a fight and relitigate the Clinton years, yes, I got fatalistic. I do not believe anyone here would pull the lever for Romney, even tho he seems squeaky clean.
Nor do I really expect them to. Romney is putatively too far right for a lefty to even consider going (R). You take what you get with the (D).
Neither can I honestly say I would vote any differently, colors reversed.
And I remain crestfallen that even good guys Obama and McCain have dirty laundry. But what I can say is that John Edwards, he of the hedge fund employment and soaking the poverty centers for exorbitant fees and perks, all the while blathering about Two Americas, should be laughed off any stage. If the colors were reversed, I would not suffer such a fool in silence.
And thanks for mischaracterizing my view once again, Mr. Mystic, in a way that makes me look like a simplistic partisan brute. As the direct quote clearly shows, I was referring to Hillary and Giuliani. And I was being charitable, even tho I believe Hillary's misdoings exceed Giuliani's.
Even in the greater scheme of things, it's unfair to call my statement "false." I adore Newt Gingrich's positions, but I'm glad he's not running. Just a little too squirrelly in his personal conduct for me.
That's not dogmatic at all, in the pejorative sense of your accusation. So please get off my back.
lol you always make it sound like it's my fault that I can't understand your writing.
k. Sorry for mischaracterizing you. Although, if I was constantly telling people that they were mischaracterizing me, I'd be thinking I might be the common denomenator in that event.
denominator*
I sat there and thought that maybe I shouldn't waste my time here, but what the hell, I can't resist:
Which quote is it that clearly shows that you were referring to Hillary and Giuliani? Is it this one:
"It disturbs me greatly that even apparently good apples like Obama [see above] and John McCain [Keating Five] have some muck in their basements. And Hillary v. Rudy would be a muckfest."
Or, going further back, is it this one:
"Sounds about right. But there is no guarantee that Rudy would lose a sleaze-a-thon to Hillary.
And well both sides know it. Sen. Obama stands in the wings."
Hmmmm..where is it that it is clearly shown that Tom was only talking about Hillary and Giuliani...hmm.
Also, even if you were only referring to those two, wouldn't you still be saying that no amount of evidence would cause one to switch positions from support of a given candidate [Hillary] to support of a different candidate on the other side of the partisan divide [Giuliani]? That was how I allegedly "mischaracterized" you.
You say that Clinton's petty corruptions should disqualify her, despite the apparent admission that we have gone over the Clintons and it seems to have been determined that they aren't nearly as bad as you think they are. You continue to say that you don't think anyone here would vote for Romney, even though he's "squeaky clean". Of course, that's kind of like "Hey, if all the people who want to do good things have apparently done bad things on varying degrees, why not vote for the guy makes it perfectly clear what bad things he'd like to do!"
That's a debate left for a thread about Mitt Romney, but my point is that it's not like the only consideration is whether or not there are accusations of misdoings in one's past. It seems like you're suggesting we ought to be voting for Romney because the other candidates allegedly have accusations of misdoings in their past, whereas he does not, but there is more to consider there than that.
Even if a really good candidate has apparently made some minor transgressions, I'd rather vote for him/her than a guy whose policies are outright stupid.
Again, this isn't necessarily characteristic of a debate of Hillary versus Romney or anything, I'm just saying that this could be the position one holds when defending one's decision to vote for someone other than Romney, and it wouldn't have to be a mindless pulling of levers.
I didn't say it was mindless, anything but.
lol you always make it sound like it's my fault that I can't understand your writing.
Oh, you understand me fine. But since you're disposed to find error, when you don't find it, you're driven to invent it with your paraphrasing, or ask me to restate my position in hopes that the second time around I'll leave an imprecision you can exploit.
As to the substance of the matter, I don't have any disagreements with what you wrote. We will not vote for the most "moral" candidate, we'll bite the bullet and pull the lever for the one who suits our druthers.
Neither do the Clintons' petty corruptions trouble me greatly, especially the Tyson-commodities trading shadiness. The Clintons had not a dime in the bank after a lifetime of public service. Mrs. Clinton thought scoring $100K of the low-hanging fruit wasn't an offense against mankind or the republic.
I was troubled by the southeast Asian money, however, which altho there was much hubbub, they got away with clean.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home