And if his moral compass was pointing sm
Posted By: m on 2009-02-06
In Reply to: Ethics and Legal Ethics - sm
to true north, he would have declined representing those clients.
You can argue the difference between ethics and legal ethics till the chickens come to roost, but if this man would represent these kinds of clients and make thse kinds of oppositions, I don't think he is fit to be the second in command of the DOJ.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Thank you for pointing that out.
However, I still don't understand how the OP can attribute every post that she finds offensive to the same two people. There are a lot of people posting on this forum. Unless someone uses the same moniker all the time, there is no way to know for certain who is posting any particular message.
Thanks for pointing that out...
nm
thank you for pointing that out
;)
Not bent, just pointing out..
Rush just seems to have a problem keeping all his pills straight. What does that tell you. He's was buying stuff in parking lots. He was visiting multiple doctors. He has other people's medications on him and yet, he slams someone about pill use ...hypocritical I say.
We hate Bush, we hate Rush, we hate Rove...that is the right's mantra. Everytime we point out something that the right cannot defend or they just simple disagree with...out comes the ***the left's hatred is so palpable we can feel it. They are so negative and hateful about everything and everyone, *** That is just not true. I personally have not hated anyone in politics since Nixon and I was young then and did not realize that hating him would accomplish nothing other than making me angrier and angrier. So that ***the left hates*** falls on deaf ears here.
I don't think she's arrogant but pointing out the
xx
I believe it is a website pointing out that there are...
people out there who do believe he is the "messiah." Not necessarily sent from God, but has become a deity to them. Did you read all the quotes on the site? Those are real quotes from real people...Obama DID use that "presidential seal" depicted there until people got outraged and he stopped using it. It is very, very concerning. And I think the answer is yes...there are a lot of people out there mesmerized by him. NO matter WHAT comes out of his mouth, they believe it. Did you see the star-gazed way they look at him? The kids "singing for their leader?" Wayyyy too freaky for me. Of course, I was not going to vote for him anyway because he is a flaming socialist, but this site would have given me serious pause if I had even thought about voting for him. Just my opinion.
Unfortunately, ours is pointing at boxes and...sm
and checking off things, but the nurses type in the history and other information themselves. I was told that basically the only thing I would be transcribing would be a letter here and there, but they have never had very many of them anyway.
Anyone purposely pointing out Hussein
Is just a stupid loser. You are a racist. Obama is not Muslim but what if he was???? Timothy McVeigh was a Christian and he blew up government buildings. There are many good muslims and good Christians AND good atheists. Can you wrap your hands around that? Anyone drawing attention to the middle name HUSSEIN is trying to cause trouble or fear that it sounds like a terrorist name. How small minded you are. Did you even graduate high school? I won't be looking for your reply. I'm busy planning a victory party for Obama.
EXCELLENT! Thank you for pointing that fact out. nm
x
Pointing to reality is "fearmongering"
February 8, 2009
IT AIN'T FEARMONGERING IF IT'S TRUE.... Just today, the LA Times has a good report on the unprecedented pressure on state budgets right now -- pressure that will not be alleviated by the federal recovery plan because Sens. Collins & Co. believe state aid isn't stimulative enough. While state shortfalls will lead to painful cuts in practically every state, Nevada is poised to get hit much harder than most.
The Times report noted, for example, that Nevada is "facing the most serious shortfall," and lawmakers will have to cut a striking 38% from its state budget. The impact across the state will be both drastic and unavoidable, most notably in the state's public schools, which will soon face a 15% cut.
It wasn't surprising, then, that Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) criticized Senate "centrists" for cutting $40 billion in state aid from the stimulus package, noting that the aid, which appeared in the House version, was intended to stop states from "laying off cops and firefighters, money to help keep teachers going." Republican Sen. John Ensign of Nevada rejected Frank's comments, labeling the remarks "fearmongering." Indeed, Ensign seemed encouraged by the fact that state budgets, including his own, would have to be slashed, calling the budgets "bloated." He said, "What we should be doing is cutting back."
Got that? As the recession worsens, and government spending is needed to prevent more Americans from losing their jobs, a leading Republican senator whose own state is about to get pummeled, believes it's a good idea to "cut back."
I can think of a variety of ways to respond to this nonsense, but I think Matt Yglesias summed things up nicely:
The idea that it would be good for states to cut back in the midst of the recession is stupid. The idea that the recession won't, absent federal aid, lead to layoffs of state employees such as teachers and firefighters is also stupid. But the idea that it's simultaneously true that the reason we should eschew aid is that states need to cut back and also true that it's fearmongering to warn of layoffs is doubleplus stupid. What does Ensign think cutbacks consist of? States will be reducing vital services. The cutbacks will have the immediate impact of reducing the incomes of laid-off families and beneficiaries of state programs. That will have an additional impact on businesses where the newly laid-off teachers and cops used to work.
And the reduced level of service will have its own bad economic impacts. Cutting back public safety budgets will mean fewer cops on the beat. That means more crime which will further reduce economic activity. State cutbacks to child care subsidies will make it harder for people who lose jobs to find and accept new ones. The cutbacks to mass transit services that are happening across the country will introduce additional rigidity into the labor market and reduce patronage of businesses that people are accustomed to reaching via transit. And in the most severe cases, cutbacks in assistant to the severely impoverished will have a decades-long impact on the well-being of their children.
Sen. John Ensign is entirely comfortable with all of these developments -- those dreaded state budgets are "bloated," after all -- but doesn't want anyone to acknowledge this publicly. Pointing to reality is "fearmongering."
It's not enough for congressional Republicans to stand in the way of sound economic policy during a crisis; they also want to discourage everyone from talking about it
He is a moral giant to me here. sm
It is not about who won or lost, it is about the integrity of the process. I think we need this after each and every election. The electronic machines need to go. I sure hope it is not a waste of time. If they did
rig it I am sure they had a plan B in case there was a recount.
Legal yes, moral no. n/m
x
The moral majority is neither
all that moral, or the majority. Don't assume who the majority is until they cast their vote.
Resorting to the 2nd grader finger-pointing and
Don't you recognize when you have run out of anything pertinent to say?
No scare tactics. Just pointing out that we don't live
If we don't start talking with some of these countries, and trying to find a way to get them thinking of other things to do with their artillery than aim it at us, then sooner or later, our little plastic bubble could get blown to bits. We're not invincible.
Pointing out that middle name is hateful and racist sm
You know that is designed to stir trouble. Muslims are not all evil and Barack isn't even a muslim. Yeah that is his middle name SO WHAT RACIST?
With all the juvenile name calling and finger pointing
exactly who introduced the use of the word "idiots" into the post. BTW, for you first, second and third responder(s), posting the same thing 2 or 3 times makes for a pathetic majoriy of one. Read my lips. PA-THE-TIC.
Then how come so many are being found out? What was that again about moral values? nm
:
and there's the moral superiority sermon for the day
Thinks they know more than about Israel than a Israeli. BTW, Liberal nobody on the C-board sicked this person on you. The only thing I believe they referred to the C-board about was reading a post there. So before you are so presumptious about that I suggest you get your facts straight and quit seeing everything in your world as conspiracy.
Moral Treason: Who's guilty?
President Theodore Roosevelt, 1918: To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
Senator Robert A. Taft (also known as Mr. Republican), 1941 (after Pearl Harbor): I believe that there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government..... Too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think it will give some comfort to the enemy.... If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country more good than it will do the enemy, and it will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur.
Oh, okay, McCain and Palin are not moral, but
nm
And there are doctors who want to do the right, moral thing.
They are the ones who care about patients and created the site where the links I posted are located.
I agree Lilly, especially about the moral decline...
Child molestation is on the top of the list for moral decline.
What kind of moral teaching she had as a child is no
reflection of whether or not she has a child out of wedlock. My 18-year-old niece was raised in church, had good Christian parents and got pregnant before marriage. You can only teach a child. You can't force him or her to live by your own convictions. 
It just seems to me to be wrong on a basic moral level....
Christianity aside...that the power of life and death be given to one individual over another. Any OTHER time than abortion that is murder, not negotiable. Yet for the most innocent among us, the most vulnerable, in the eyes of some it is fine for one human being to decide to terminate the life of another on the basis of choice...and inconvenience.
I do not believe Obama sits around and thinks about how many babies will die every day (to the tune of over a million a year...!). I don't think he thinks about it much at all. How lucky for him his mother chose life.
I didn't say it was correct, legal, or moral.
And the WMDs didn't have anything to do with it, although you'll never convince me that Sadaam didn't have the capability for such - he'd used them in the past to kill hundreds of thousands of his own people.
Correct, legal, moral or whatever, if you're in line with a terrorist group, like many sent to these places were, then you have no rights. Plain and simple.
I just feel that we've gotten too far from 9/11 and remembering what that day was like and all those people killed. It seems like now we care more about the "rights" of those involved in terrorist activites than those innocent people who died that day. Maybe that's why we're such an easy target.
name calling and finger pointing, again with no real facts but your opinion. sm
I expect no less from Palin haters
You take the moral high ground and watch video
nm
I so agree! And even if it was not a moral issue, what about the medical issues (sm)
that can arise? How dare someone even think of performing any procedure my child without my permission unless it is a medical emergency?
the moral majority spoke in CA but that isnt good enough
They banned it, voted against it. The state of CA spoke but the gays are not happy with that and have to march. They will push and push till they get their way. Whether it is against God or not. what a shame. 
I understand the moral stance, but feel the rhetoric is over-the-top.....sm
This man is NOT pro-abortion, as many of us are not. He is preserving the right of choice for ALL women, and does not believe that a poor woman who has undergone a rape, incest, domestic violince/intimidation situation, or even has just accidentally gotten pregnant with a child she cannot carry for medical, emotional, or financial reasons....I hate abortion also, but if Americans are to be equal, then a poor woman needs to have resources available to her which would be available to others, or you are damning her to the back-alley abortionists. That is reality. I, Myself, married 18 years, vigilantly spacing my children and on birth control, came up with an unexpected, very difficult pregnancy. Yes, we made the choice to love and take this baby into the world, but we also had SOME resources and family, some girls do not.
There are not many folk who are PRO ABORTION, but preserving the individual choice, though abhorrent to many of us, is part of true liberty. And God Himself will judge as appropriate.
And I do feel that those few who use abortion as a means of birth control, well there should be restrictions and a definite "no."
Isn't the party line "good christian moral values" or something like that? sm
If they are going to espouse all that good moral values stuff, the least they could do would be to acknowledge it in their own loves. The GOP won the election (supposedly) on the stand that they would bring back all that good value bullcrap to government. So, I guess we're seeing it now, huh?
Lying and the Culture of Life. What Moral Values by Junaid Alam...sm
Lying and the Culture of Life
What Moral Values?
By M. JUNAID ALAM
Strong moral values, decency, propriety, and honesty: conservatives long ago declared these ideals essential to their belief system, achieving political ascendancy with promises of restoring honor to a government they view as tainted by liberal immorality and excess.
A fine notion, indeed, but one question lingers: what happened?
Barely a year into Bush's second term, the American political landscape is brimming with blatant examples of conservative deceit, dishonesty, cronyism, and hypocrisy.
Foremost among these examples is Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's right-hand man, who has been indicted on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements before a grand jury. Not that this is cause for embarrassment among conservatives--indeed, many are relieved, pointing out that Libby is in trouble only for lying. It seems conservative standards on morality have slipped a bit.
Of course, the Libby indictment is but the tip of the beast's horn. The larger case is about a vengeful administration that was bent on destroying an undercover CIA agent's career by leaking her name because her husband, Joseph Wilson, also a CIA agent, challenged shoddy evidence buttressing the case for war in Iraq.
Let us forget for a moment the value of simple honesty. Let us forget also the importance of not undermining the nation's intelligence services when one's entire platform is national security.
What does this event tell us about the oft-invoked conservative call to respect the culture of life, so often invoked in abortion debates? Let us not pander to fools: this war was, beyond a shadow of a doubt, based on manifest lies and exaggerations. Therefore, can anyone seriously claim that this administration showed even the slightest respect for the lives of the 2,000 American soldiers, or the lives countless Iraqi civilians now lost to the war's horrors? Most intriguing, then, is this culture of life--a culture which champions life when it does not yet exist, and abandons it when it does.
Surely, however, could the Republican Party not redeem itself through its philosophy of Christian compassion? Apparently not. Congressional testimony two weeks ago revealed that when FEMA's sole representative in New Orleans--who was there only accidentally--found thousands of Americans stranded without food or shelter during the hurricane, he issued a desperate call for help to FEMA chief Michael Brown. Brown's aide replied--several hours later--with the following instructive example of compassionate conservatism in action: It is very important that time is allowed for Mr. Brown to eat dinner. The locale of choice? Baton Rouge. Marie Antoinette would have been impressed.
Equally impressive is the Republican Party's idea of taking responsibility and not blaming others--a key conservative tenet--in the case of Tom Delay, the House majority leader indicted for pouring corporate money into Texas' 2002 state elections, which saw the reconfiguration of the state's congressional districts along even more pro-Republican lines. Censured three times in 2004 alone by the bipartisan House Ethics Committee, Delay nonetheless views the indictment as a kind of vast left-wing conspiracy, calling the prosecutor an unabashed partisan zealot. Heaven forbid.
It goes without saying that Republican contrition for any of the outrages outlined above is unlikely: the arsonists are running the firehouse, and they take great pride in fanning the flames.
We would be sorely remiss, however, if we ignored the role of the Democrats in this affair. They have sat on their firehoses and idled their fire engines on key issues, enabling Republican misbehavior to go unchecked. Most Democrats, it must be remembered, voted in favor of granting Bush unprecedented war powers. And it was the liberal New York Times, with its neo-con pseudo-journalist Judith Miller at the helm, who led the drumbeat procession to invade Iraq based on the thinnest of lies.
Naïve liberal Democrats were also quite pleased to see conservatives break ranks during the Harriet Miers debacle, taking it as a sign of some kind of impending right-wing implosion. They apparently forgot the basic fact that it was the far right--not what passes for the left--that tore apart Miers' chances for judicial confirmation. Now, a staunch conservative, Alito, has been nominated and the implosion has disappeared into thin air. As usual, we can soon count on the usual centrist Democrats--those Klan-minus-costume-crats and heirs to the Dixiecrat legacy--to help vote Alito onto the bench.
Thus, while conservative wrongdoing is obvious, liberals must take a long, hard look at their own party's role in producing the present state of affairs. Americans are told, after all, that there are two major parties, and that one is supposed to act in opposition to the other.
A fine notion, indeed, but one question lingers: what happened?
M. Junaid Alam, co-editor of Left Hook, can be reached at alam@lefthook.org
We're not defending Bush we're pointing out the obvious
All you see in your view is Bush, Bush, Bush. Nobody else exists. You have yet to answer any of the questions I posed yesterday. We're not the one obsessing about Bush. I'm sure you'll counter that with I don't owe you any answers! It's really telling that for five or six days this board was mute about the Israel/Lebanon situation. You were too busy posting trash news about Bush like nothing was even happening, but I know that the left has wait for its talking points. You all cannot formulate opinions on your own. You have boilerplates ready to go though. *This is Bush's fault because _____________ but you have to wait on Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, etc. etc. to fill in the blanks for you. It's not just a phenomenon here but with all the left. You can count on at least two days of silence when something unforseen breaks out in the world, because they have to retreat to their bunkers to get their talking points straight, but it will always start with *This is Bush's fault because....
Obviously u didnt read, I said NONE of them are moral. Read the post before spouting off.
|
