Tough Decisions for Obama

Ajani · 02-09-2009, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by JSE

Should a known tax evader be the US Treasury Secretary?

Also - No... not unless there's a damn good explanation of why he goofed the taxes... neither deceit nor incompetence is an excuse... I'm thinking something along the lines of his tax accountant messing up his return and embarrassing him....

nightflier · 02-09-2009, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by JSE

Should a known tax evader be the US Treasury Secretary?
I'll be waiting. (probably for a long time though)

...you'd know that I said no. He shouldn't.

But that says nothing about the criminality of our politicians. Trying to say that crimes are the same, tax evader, adulterer, or torturer, is completely twisted. Just as we should not excuse tax-evaders we also shouldn't excuse known torturers (both those who do it and those who order them to do it). In all your posts, you say that torture is a necessary evil (which I and others here disagree with), that can be overlooked but that tax evasion is not. There is a question of degrees. I would rather have a tax-evader in office than a torturer. Torture doesn't work, makes the all of us Americans look like hypocrites, is illegal, is cruel & inhumane, and has widespread ramifications for our own POWs. Tax evasion doesn't quite carry such a heavy price-tag. So why should we be so zealous to punish when we don't pursue torturers with the same zeal and excuse their actions as necessary evil.

Second, we don't know how "criminal" Geithner is. Do you know the details of his "crime"? Did he even know that he was cheating? It's easy for us to conclude he's guilty because he's a politician, but that's by association, and prejudiced as well. The fact is, none of us here know whether Geithner is really a thief who stole from the government. We speculate, we guess, we associate, but we don't really know. Cheney, Rummy: guilty as sin; after all, they bragged about their crimes in front of the camera.

Finally, I consider it hypocritical for anyone to point the finger at Geithner when we are all guilty of some transgression. Geithner gets the shaft because he's high-profile, a politician, a Democrat, and let's be honest, because he's part of Obama's team. Yes, I'm sure we all would love to believe that if the tables were reversed, and we were talking about McCain's guy, we'd be just as hard on him, but I seriously doubt the same people would be asking for the man's hide. JSE, you may not be a tax-evader, but before you consider yourself a model-citizen eagle Scout, consider that your apologist position on torture betrays you. I going to guess that you're a lot more like Cartman than you hoped.

**Mr Peabody** · 02-09-2009, 06:53 PM

Thought; for those of you who think it's alright for known violators to be in government positions and especially think because they done something wrong once don't mean they will do it again; why are we all judged by our credit reports? Why do sex offenders have to register? Why do those comvicted of felony lose so many privileges even after serving their time? These are things created by the government, those in charge. Seems they don't trust us any more than we trust them. Those mentioned in the beginning must think double standard is alright too.

Also, just for the record, the Bible does give authority for the government to punish and if they see fit for death, so be it. Re-read Romans 13:1-7 . While some are quick to point out flaws in those calling themselves "Christian", add to the list that some zero in on the word love and forgiveness but seem to put a blind eye on wrath, punishment and damnation etc. The word of God is complete, and it is written, not to take away or add to it. Take it or leave it but you can't go through it with white out creating your own version. Well, I guess you can if you want but the point is it won't do you any good. If religion is to remain out of this thread, please quit bringing it up because I can't help but to correct error.

**Auricauricle** · 02-09-2009, 07:16 PM

I will not discuss these matters until all reference to things religiousness, theology, etc. are removed from the dialog. These concepts are open to dispute and debate; the inclusion of unprovable "givens" quashes any chance that these discussions can proceed openly and in the spirit of rational and well-considered discourse. If you wanna talk about God , please do so in another forum. Again, we can talk about ethics all you like, for we can do so without all the attendant liturgical mumbo jumbo!

**bobsticks** · 02-09-2009, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by Auricauricle

I will not discuss these matters until all reference to things religiousness, theology, etc. are removed from the dialog. These concepts are open to dispute and debate; the inclusion of unprovable "givens" quashes any chance that these discussions can proceed openly and in the spirit of rational and well-considered discourse. If you wanna talk about God , please do so in another forum. Again, we can talk about ethics all you like, for we can do so without all the attendant liturgical mumbo jumbo!

...which is fair enough after all. The discussion is based on the affairs of the U.S. Government which is supposed to be theology-free. This is becoming a garish pig of a thread...

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7:6

nightflier · 02-09-2009, 07:30 PM

Isn't that animal cruelty?

**JSE** · 02-09-2009, 07:37 PM