Posted on 07/14/2005 3:08:36 PM PDT by John Jorsett
Sorry. You're right.
That's true. But then Republicans always look differently at corruption inside their own party.
There's a difference between your thesis, that his corruption negated his heroism and makes him a bastard through and through, and the idea that he has been both a hero and corrupt and while his corruption should be condemned he should not be condemned (whether he's "ours" or not), since doing so would be a denial of his service to our country.
This is consistent with how Democrats are treated: Freepers say over and over and over and over and over, we respect and honor your military service but stridently oppose your corruption and liberalism.
Let's keep in mind that he hasn't been convicted (or even formally charged) and that all we have are accounts in the media. Let the investigation do its job and THEN we can condemn him if it's warranted.
Still a non-sequitor.
At the time, slavery was legally and morally acceptable according to society's standards of the day. Slavery is now correctly viewed as immoral even though it was legal.
Corruption of an elected official was as unacceptable then as it is now.
How is what he did any different from what Hillary did?
Bill Clinton served the country as President, just as his wife serves as Senator. If they walked up to you and offered their hand, would you shake it out of respect for their service or walk away because of their corruption?
This is consistent with how Democrats are treated: Freepers say over and over and over and over and over, we respect and honor your military service but stridently oppose your corruption and liberalism.
I supposed you can take this attitude if you want, but the fact that he took the money in the first place shows that he morals probably weren't everything they were cracked up to be.
Abortion is legally and morally acceptable today. It's still murder.
I would shake it out of politeness. Heck, I shook Dan Rather's hand at graduation. On second thought, with Bill I would have very real concern about where his hands had been and whether they'd been washed, so I might beg off claiming sickness.
Surely you are not comparing Clinton's service to Cunningham's?!?!?
he morals probably weren't everything they were cracked up to be.
He's honored for being a soldier, not a saint. He mighta hired prostitutes too. So what? It's beside the point.
You're being awfully judgemental for someone you don't even know.
Only morally acceptible to morally corrupt individuals. Moral people condemn the act as murder and the actor as a murderer, just as they condemn the politician on the take as a crook.
er, "sailor", I guess. Navy pilot. You know what I mean.
The original question was, how is Cunningham's house deal any different from Hillary's cattle futures deal?
I'm still waiting for you, or anyone else to describe the differences.
He's honored for being a soldier, not a saint. He mighta hired prostitutes too. So what? It's beside the point.
So, do we support once-honorable servicemen in office even though they have turned into corrupt politicians?
I say, "No."
What say you?
Sorry Ol' Bubba, you made this bed, now lie in it!
Never said society is always right, so I don't have to lie in anything.
You sure seem to be pulling out all stops to defend Cunningham, though.
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
Don't avoid the subject. The question WE were discussing was YOUR comparison of Bill Clinton's service as president to Cunningham's service in the Navy.
I think everyone's acknowledged that (assuming the charges are accurate, which hardly seems to be debated) Cunningham and Hillary were both corrupt.
So, do we support once-honorable servicemen in office
Everyone on the thread so far has agreed that Cunningham should go: the only debate is now or at the end of his term.
You said you hold people to the standards of society, not to the standards of right and wrong. Slavery and abortion are both wrong, both have been judged acceptable by society at some point.
Golly, and I thought I'd almost pulled the wool over your eyes like Cunningham pulled the wool over the eyes of his constituents.
All this time, they thought he honorable and was upholding his oath of office.
Aren't they surprised now?
I never said anything of the sort and I defy you to prove I did.
Being an American hero is the reason he should not be given a break. Why is a break deserved for a hero who breaks a trust given to heros?
For the record, I never compared Clintons service as President to Cunningham's service in the Navy. Here's what I wrote:
"Bill Clinton served the country as President, just as his wife serves as Senator. If they walked up to you and offered their hand, would you shake it out of respect for their service or walk away because of their corruption?"
Please show my comparison of these two men's service.
Please stop putting words into my mouth.
She has diverse experience. Also, having another Hispanic in Congress would generate good press.
Here's her bio:
http://www.dca.ca.gov/aboutdca/director_bio.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.