It can be noble in the same way Don Quixote was noble, but then it’s just sad.
In any case, the outright grifting of Bill and Hillary Clinton exceeds the most wildest dreams of the most nefarious characters in the history of American politics. The Clinton Global Initiative may be the most opaque grifting organization anyone has had the audacity to pull off.
Not only that, they are both responsible for the deaths of countless thousands of innocent people.
It can also be noble in the same way serving in the armed forces can be noble, or serving as a fireman, or policeman, or volunteering for the community. Do you disagree that these things can be noble in a positive way?
Serving in the armed forces right now is not noble. When you are defending yourself or others, it can be noble. This is usually not the case in military adventures.
Serving as a fireman is noble, but isn’t related to the others listed.
Serving as a policeman is not noble when it involves immoral action. It is noble to save and help victims, but this is not the exclusive territory of the police. Many people of many professions save and help victims, many to a much greater extent than police. Many police are severely ignoble. I don’t believe that is controversial.
Volunteering is interesting because it really has nothing to do with the others, especially politicians, police, and military. Anyway, what are you volunteering to do? Participate in politics? Ignoble. Serve the hungry? Noble.
Politicians cannot be noble in a way that creates positive change unless they are defending others from the government.
I don’t think Biden’s ability to withstand (or possibly even feel) embarrassment is something upon which reasonable minds can differ.
I worked for my local city government for over a decade. We worked hard, usually thanklessly and on a budget that kept growing smaller, yet continued to provide needed services.
I can’t tell from your comments if you distinguish between actual government workers and the elected politicians that write the laws. Perhaps you are not saying that government in and of itself is harmful.
In some ways I feel the way police must feel: wanting to defend all the everyday good that is done when people start calling them criminals. It’s true that 1% of the time, police do horrible acts that can’t be defended. It’s equally true that 1% of the time governments do horrible acts that can’t be defended.
Denounce them as loudly as you like. I’ll stand right beside you. The rest of the time I’ll be equally loud in telling you that your notions about government are pure nonsense. Yet government will go right on serving your needs twenty four hours a day.
Yes it can. Ending Jim Crow, and ending the possibility of informal discrimination like ‘sundown towns’, was a noble action by the government. Ending lynchings was a noble action by the government. Ending segregation was a noble action by the government.
Except for lynchings, all of those did involve defending others from (other) governments.
Public service is noble, when you are doing it for public service. When you are doing it because you like the power or the fame, or because it beats working at McDonalds, then there’s nothing noble about it.
Sundown towns weren’t created by local governments – they were created by informal agreements in communities.
Guess I should kneel and give thanks to the government for monopolizing the key services needed to operate in today’s society. You should simultaneously kneel and give thanks to the providers of other services, but I doubt you thought your rant through.
Yes the politicians who made it possible for racists to make money off of black people while simultaneously freeing black people from needing to drive to the next town were the epitome of nobility.
Yes, the politicians who ended the possibility of sundown towns – informal agreements for businesses to not serve black customers and even to threaten violence against black families who would not leave town – did something noble. Ending the possibility of being a broken-down car away from being beaten for being black was a noble thing that government did. Ensuring that families could be served during road trips regardless of race was a good and noble thing that government did.
The Internet’s irony meter just exploded.
Hm, you ignored the part about allowing racists to make money off of black people, but that was expected. Perhaps you have a favorable opinion of keeping capital under the control of racists, I don’t know.
Government monopolized law enforcement. It was inadequate in its provision of this service, or else you could not cite the unhindered violence against black people. If the government was noble, it would abandon it’s monopoly on law and protection, or take steps in that direction.
If you were funnier, I wouldn’t have noticed that you have no response.
Your thinking on this issue is muddy. You’re complaining that the lack of protection of blacks in previous decades could be abated by not protecting anyone? That’s asinine.
Prejudice was fought by putting the force of government behind protecting everyone.
I totally agree. Hillary should run if she feels fully confident that she can commit 100% to the job. That she has the energy and health to put in the 14 hour days.
It would be wrong to run and get elected just because she could make history. That alone isn’t enough to sustain her in office. There has to be a clear vision of what she wants to do. She has to feel that she can lead the country and accomplish her platform.
I ignored it because it was incoherent and made no sense. The government didn’t “allow” the racists to do anything – the racists could do what they want. They “allowed” black people to travel and be served freely in businesses.
I would trust private law enforcement even less than government law enforcement. The Pinkertons were not a force for good in our history. That would be a profoundly ignoble development.
This is not an argument. It doesn’t even rise to the level of incoherence.
At best it is a viewpoint, albeit one thoroughly uniformed by not understanding what government is and does. So yes, rather than having no response, my actual statement was a good and proper response to your insult.
This thread is not a discussion of the nobility of government service.
If anyone has a need to argue that point, go open a new thread.
(And if anyone chooses to participate in that thread, keep the personal comments out of it (unless it is opened in The BBQ Pit). Any personal jabs, there, or any more personal jabs in this thread will receive Warnings to stop.)
[ /Moderating ]
If Clinton won the Presidency she’d almost certainly face a Republican House at the very least. Is she willing to go through more years of investigation into her and her husband’s life?
I actually think that Hillary and the Republicans can work well together, but I also know Republicans will go after any hint of scandal with serious enthusiasm. I guess if the Clintons are professional enough to put that aside when they need to get things done maybe it doesn’t affect them too much. But I have to wonder why she’d want to put herself through that again when Republicans will likely have the bargaining edge throughout her Presidency by virtue of controlling Congress. Even if the Democrats win back the Senate in 2016, they almost certainly just lose it again in 2018.