doing evil to obtain good? (Page 4)

Forums

Forum guidelines BT super discount

Updated posts

My threads
No new posts

My favorite threads

Other Resources

My Cup of Joe » doing evil to obtain good?

Rss Feed

Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller

of 4

run4yrlif

2006-01-25 8:37 AM

in reply to: #331300

Giver

18427

Subject: RE: doing evil to obtain good?

ASA22 - 2006-01-25 9:35 AM 1) So while liberals, democrats, and the press are assuming that the president over stepped his authority...

Don't forget that plenty of conservatives/republicans have questioned this also.

My Race Log

run4yrlif

2006-01-25 8:40 AM

in reply to: #331303

Giver

18427

Subject: RE: doing evil to obtain good?

In reference to my earlier post, t's funny that the common theme of Bush supporters is to defend what he's done as POTUS as "not bad" (as in not criminal or not imcompetent). But I almost never hear what he has done described as good.

So a challenge: tell me what good things this POTUS has done. I'd really like to know.

My Race Log

coredump

2006-01-25 8:53 AM

in reply to: #328177

Pro

3906

St Charles, IL

Subject: RE: doing evil to obtain good?

As a follow-up point. I have no beef with my own phone or email being tapped in the efforts to identify and track terrorists in the US.

Where my problem lies is with the removal of all oversight and accountability. Our system of government works because it is a system of checks and balances. Removing or circumventing those checks and balances causes an imbalance of power in the system.

I want to know that there's someone watching the watchers.

No oversight, no review is my problem, not the tapping/monitoring itself.

-Chris

My Race Log

ghart2

2006-01-25 9:00 AM

in reply to: #331301

Veteran

282

Dallas, TX

Subject: RE: doing evil to obtain good?

coredump - 2006-01-25 7:35 AM

ghart2 - 2006-01-25 7:27 AM

coredump - 2006-01-25 7:13 AM

ASA22 - 2006-01-25 7:04 AM "Katrina" You may think Bush is a bad president, but I'm prety confident that he had nothing to do with a Hurricane.

Heh. A wise-guy, eh? Woowoowoowoo!

By Katrina I'm referring to the preparedness for and the response following. My own fault for being too concise.

-C

I understand you have a firm stance against the Bush admin, but everyone is reaching on Katrina. The big report out now is that they knew a major hurricane would devestate New Orleans. Guess what! Every admin in the past 30 years has known this and every one of them has ignored it as did the local New Orleans government.

I do think everyone can agree that the FEMA response left alot to be desired.

"Brownie, you're doing a heckova job!"

Putting a political crony at the helm of FEMA was not the fault of past adminstrations.

And that's all I've got to say for now.

-Chris

So are you saying that if you could go back in time and appoint (insert your desired person here) as the head of FEMA, then the destruction from Katrina would somehow have been limited? I think I agreed with you that the FEMA response to Katrina was poor at best.

And Jim, I would not categorize the Bush presidency as being a success. I can recognize however, that he has had some very large challanges during his tenure which were none of his doing(9/11, al qaeda, and worst natural disaster in US history). Was the responses to these situations all with out flaw? Absolutely not and I don't think anyone in their right mind would believe they were. But the fact is, he was re-elected and he will not be going anywhere for another 3 years. While I feel it is healthy to have the right to question our government, I also find it disturbing when one party or group of people focus all their energy on trying to destroy the people elected to run the government. Republicans did the same thing when Clinton was in office and it bothered me just as much then.

My Race Log

Brock Samson

2006-01-25 9:01 AM

in reply to: #331303

Elite

2733

Venture Industries,

Subject: RE: doing evil to obtain good?

Oh absolutely I agree. I question it, although I do see a potential arguement for the administration. (And if there is a potential arguement, even if ultimately the administrations action are determined to be improper and that arguemtn is rejected, there should be no culpability. As long as that argument is colorable and made in good faith) Don't get me wrong, but as of this moment in time there has not been a final determination on the matter. And to address your earlier point regarding congressional knowledge, there is a long history of 1) Use of the executive authority as commander in chief to justify argueably extra-constitutional power, and 2) The Supreme Court has permitted congeressional delegation of power to the executive branch on issues of foreign policy as the Constitutional seperation of powers has not been viewd as as clearly defined as one would think. My prediction is that when the administration is called to justify its actions in this arena you will hear a quote from Justice Sutherland (1936) regarding the role of the president in foreign affairs. Whether it flies or not will be interesting. But just remember the name.

My Race Log

Brock Samson

2006-01-25 9:03 AM

in reply to: #331308

Elite

2733