Hey Airman, remember when Gandhi bombed … anyone? Or when he got those blowjobs from … anyone? Or wait! I remember the day Gandhi came out and lied to the American public about … yeah, I can really see how Clinton was incredibly moral.
If you’re going to have a president and his administration be the standard of morality, you might want to look in a century other than this one or the last one. Adams might be a decent one.
Lest anyone take my previous post as an attack on Airman Doors, I was merely reinforcing the asininity of Diogenes’ post.
I’m not really getting into this argument, because I’ve seen and heard it ad nauseum lately, but I am wondering about the OP’s actual question. Is “amoral” the word he/she really wants to use, or is “immoral” the better choice? Just trying to clarify.
SPOOFE: I’m afraid you’re a little unsteady on the meaning of “imminent”. I loathe people who post definitions from dictionaries, but suffice to say it is not a synonym for “potential” or “theoretical”.
And Dio is a lot funnier than you, but then again, so is gas gangrene.
What’s so amoral about a blow job? At least that didn’t kill anybody. I don’t remeber Clinton taking a piss on the Bill of Rights either. Clinton was no saint, but i don’t think he showed the personal arrogance or the contempt for the public that W shows.
What’s amoral about a blow job is when it comes as a surprise to one’s spouse that it happened, for one;) And it certainly didn’t kill anyone, but I was unaware that immorality is measured by the degree to which it kills someone.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think Bush is all that and a bag of gold. I just don’t think Bush’s bag is full of shit.
You may very well have snuck a quarter out of your mother’s purse when you were little. That was immoral. I very much doubt that you stufffed her into a wood chipper, but that, of course, would have been immoral. Thus, we introduce the concept of a relative scale.
In both cases, we might rise in indignant outrage, Clinton and Bush. “He lied to the American people!” being a well-remembered mantra of shock and dismay, worthy of terrible retribution.
Clinton lied, and faced impeachment. Bush lied, and will get away with it. Clinton was making whoopee under false pretenses, Bush was making folks dead under false pretenses. If you see these as being roughly equivalent, morally, well, what can one say?
I have to say that if the administration can get frostillicus and those of his persuasion this hot under the collar, then they must be doing something right.
And if heaven is going to be peopled by Clinton and his buddies then I want to book my reservation in hell now. Hillary basking in the glow of her own self-worth and virtue, for eternity? The stampede out of the Pearly Gates would be led by the angels and saints themselves.
elucidator, my point was that Clinton is not the virtuous saint Diogenes would like to remember him as. I am aware that some things are worse than others (I am older than five, after all;)). However, I don’t see this “If you see these as being roughly equivalent” sense being borne out in any part of my post. I thought I took rather obvious measures to show that I wasn’t being a Bushian or Clintonian apologist.
I never said Clinton was a saint. I said exactly the opposite. I said he was Gandhiesque in comparison to Bush. Clinton’s “amorality” was private, not public, and unlike Shrub, his egoism was non-fatal to others.
That is the point I took as well. But, as long as that is clarified, no hurt, no foul.
Bush Administration most amoral in history ??
not according to Bob Geldof, activist for African relief for many years.
http://www.theage.com.au/handheld/articles/2003/05/28/1053801441542.htm
"Bob Geldof has astonished the aid community by praising the Bush Administration as one of Africa’s best friends in its fight against hunger and AIDS.
The musician-turned-activist said Washington was providing major assistance, in contrast to the European Union’s “pathetic and appalling” response to the continent’s humanitarian crises.
“You’ll think I’m off my trolley when I say this, but the Bush Administration is the most radical - in a positive sense - in its approach to Africa since Kennedy,” Geldof, the organiser of the 1985 Live Aid concert, said on Tuesday at the start of his UNICEF-sponsored return visit to Ethiopia.
The neo-conservatives and religious right-wingers who surrounded US President George Bush were proving unexpectedly receptive to appeals for help, he said. “You can get the weirdest politicians on your side.”
Former president Bill Clinton had not helped Africa much, despite his high-profile visits and apparent empathy with the downtrodden, Geldof said."
even leftist activist have to admire the compassion of a decent man in the white house
To the OPer: it can be argued that Bush Duex has a noble goal at the core of its actions: protecting the US from terrorism. Compare that to Nixon whose goal seemed to be sastifying his own paranoia. I’m not a Bush fan (the latter Bush. I can respect the former), but I won’t call those clowns the most anything in US history.
As for amoral v immoral, I left my Strunk and White at school. Sorry.
Hey, Gandhi bombed my hometown. I spent twenty years training all around the world to defeat him, then someone told me that Gandhi died fifty-seven years ago. Yeah, tell me now. Now where can I get a job? My resume is nice at least. Special skills: gopher-chucks, jump good.
[pedantry=insufferable]The difference between immoral and amoral is that immoral means basically bad, anti-moral, wicked, while amoral just connotates an indifference to morality. It’s neither moral, nor immoral in itself, it’s just not concerned with morality one way or the other.[/pedantry]
What was the connection between Iraq and terrorism?
Hmmmm…am I the only one who can think back a bit before the Clinton Administration to an Administration that yielded 138 officials either indicted, convicted or investigated?
James Watt, Secretary of the Interior, John Poindexter, National Security Advisor, Casper Weinberger, Secretary of Defense, Robert McFarlane, National Security Advisor, Raymond Donovan, Secretary of Labor, numerous CIA officials, etc., etc. etc…
Iran Contra, HUD fraud, Superfund, Savings and Loan scandals, EPA, defrauding of the NYC Transit Authority, and let me say it again–Iran Contra.
Really, Clinton and Bush II look like minor leaguers in comparison to the Reagan Administration.
To really be serious about the OP, I think that Grant probably had the most corrupt administration over all (but Reagan was close).
I said it can be argued. I personally feel it was a demonstration of the Bush Doctrine with little to no connection.
Ok, gotcha.
And I’m glad he’s doing it. Bush ain’t the anti-Christ, as far as I know.
Doesn’t mean he isn’t causing death, destruction, and the wholesale demolition of civil rights. He’s neither the most immoral or amoral President to date…he doesn’t lie the most, for one thing.
But has any other President entered office with a criminal record? I was recently told GWB was the only one.