Star(r) witnesses towards both modern presidential impeachments are written in history and will remain that way. The wrath each incurred afterwards is also familiar. It is unfortunate how closed minds color interpretations of these facts and even seek to assail folks who allow themselves to think freely.
Star(r) witnesses towards both modern presidential impeachments are written in history and will remain that way. The wrath each incurred afterwards is also familiar. It is unfortunate how closed minds color interpretations of these facts and even seek to assail folks who allow themselves to think freely.
William, no one here has assailed you personally. A person such as you or me who puts out ideas into a discussion forum has to be prepared for others to have different ideas. While your description of similarities is interesting, and even amusing, IMO the differences in character as shown by scheming (Tripp) vs honorable (Vindman) actions are far more important. You can call that a closed mind if you want.
You seem to imply that Lt Col Vindman, Fiona Hill, Ambassador Yovanovitch, and the other public servants who testified to Trump's illegal shakedown are all no better than Linda Tripp finagling a dress with evidence of non-marital consensual presidential sex. If that is not what you meant, please clarify.
I would suggest that calling other people's ideas an "abomination" is really not the best way to get started with intellectualism.
You wish to qualify people's intent, and I haven't criticized your idea or that of others, however, I would also proffer the danger in imposing an unqualified view of what the intent of others is or providing commentary on their "character". It seems, you wish to decry Tripp based on your belief of her as a person, rather than accept or discuss my observation that they served similar roles in the last two presidential impeachments.
The Facts are: Tripp and Vindman produced key evidence towards their respective cases. As I explained, this resulted in great polarization (but no real outcome) followed by political retribution (which still seems to linger, hence this dialogue).
Lastly, I don't believe it is fair or right to proclaim some folks as "better" than others; that is really a road I don't rally upon. Sorry.
In textual analysis, which is what this thread is partly about, 'author intent' has long been superseded by 'reader response' and other critical approaches.
I care nothing about your intent.
My response to your statement, is that linking those two names, those two persons, is an abomination. On the level of language and in the context of history and of society.
My response above is to our friend, Joan, who discussed "intent". Please try to stay focused and perhaps let other folks determine (and contribute towards) what this thread is "about"...
If we are discussing the innate worth of a person as a human being, yes, we are all equal. Some people’s actions are demonstrably better than others. To offer an example within the constrained arena of elected Republicans in Florida: Sen Rick Scott condemned the NeoNazis’ hate rally in Orlando. Governor Desantis not only refused to criticize Nazi hate, his press person twice suggested it was unfair to ask that of him. Therefore I regard Scott’s behavior as morally better than that of his governor.
It seems you posted a gamut of obfuscation for some reason and ended with a change of subject. None of it relates to this sub-discussion.
Further, it does not discount the fact that both Tripp and Vindman were key evidential players in POTUS impeachments and they are both praised/demeaned according to ones political beliefs.
Therefore, I think understanding their similarity is probably more important that immediately recoiling to denounce it.
In a 'compare and contrast' scenario, understanding the relative significance of similarities and differences is essential.
On the level of language, rhetorical turns come with an allegiance to fact and a burden of responsibility.
I can list all the ways in which cats and dogs, apples and oranges, planets and stars are similar. But to be useful and honest, I would have to admit that the ways they differ are more significant to understanding the world I live in and how to take ethical action.
Thanks for the unsubstantiated insult and attempt to discredit. That speaks loudly about those who utilize such tactics.
Funny all this begins simply because I noted that Vindman and Tripp are similar in the roles they played during the respective impeachments, their ultimate impact, and the subsequent effects to their lives. How trollish of me, however, I am quite confident in this logic whether or not folks are able to pull their heads from the sand and appreciate it.
Star(r) witnesses towards both modern presidential impeachments are written in history and will remain that way. The wrath each incurred afterwards is also familiar. It is unfortunate how closed minds color interpretations of these facts and even seek to assail folks who allow themselves to think freely.
William, no one here has assailed you personally. A person such as you or me who puts out ideas into a discussion forum has to be prepared for others to have different ideas. While your description of similarities is interesting, and even amusing, IMO the differences in character as shown by scheming (Tripp) vs honorable (Vindman) actions are far more important. You can call that a closed mind if you want.
You seem to imply that Lt Col Vindman, Fiona Hill, Ambassador Yovanovitch, and the other public servants who testified to Trump's illegal shakedown are all no better than Linda Tripp finagling a dress with evidence of non-marital consensual presidential sex. If that is not what you meant, please clarify.
ThankYou JoanF for your gracious and elucidating reply. You are a fine mediator.
I would suggest that calling other people's ideas an "abomination" is really not the best way to get started with intellectualism.
You wish to qualify people's intent, and I haven't criticized your idea or that of others, however, I would also proffer the danger in imposing an unqualified view of what the intent of others is or providing commentary on their "character". It seems, you wish to decry Tripp based on your belief of her as a person, rather than accept or discuss my observation that they served similar roles in the last two presidential impeachments.
The Facts are: Tripp and Vindman produced key evidence towards their respective cases. As I explained, this resulted in great polarization (but no real outcome) followed by political retribution (which still seems to linger, hence this dialogue).
Lastly, I don't believe it is fair or right to proclaim some folks as "better" than others; that is really a road I don't rally upon. Sorry.
In textual analysis, which is what this thread is partly about, 'author intent' has long been superseded by 'reader response' and other critical approaches.
I care nothing about your intent.
My response to your statement, is that linking those two names, those two persons, is an abomination. On the level of language and in the context of history and of society.
My response above is to our friend, Joan, who discussed "intent". Please try to stay focused and perhaps let other folks determine (and contribute towards) what this thread is "about"...
If we are discussing the innate worth of a person as a human being, yes, we are all equal. Some people’s actions are demonstrably better than others. To offer an example within the constrained arena of elected Republicans in Florida: Sen Rick Scott condemned the NeoNazis’ hate rally in Orlando. Governor Desantis not only refused to criticize Nazi hate, his press person twice suggested it was unfair to ask that of him. Therefore I regard Scott’s behavior as morally better than that of his governor.
Watergate, Iran Contra, ClintonStarr sex follies, Ukraine. And all involved. Any analogies offered here do more to obscure than to elucidate.
What is consistent is the decline of the GOP . Its resentment of Federal government and of the rule of law.
Thank you. What a slippery slope this discussion has found itself in!
It seems you posted a gamut of obfuscation for some reason and ended with a change of subject. None of it relates to this sub-discussion.
Further, it does not discount the fact that both Tripp and Vindman were key evidential players in POTUS impeachments and they are both praised/demeaned according to ones political beliefs.
Therefore, I think understanding their similarity is probably more important that immediately recoiling to denounce it.
In a 'compare and contrast' scenario, understanding the relative significance of similarities and differences is essential.
On the level of language, rhetorical turns come with an allegiance to fact and a burden of responsibility.
I can list all the ways in which cats and dogs, apples and oranges, planets and stars are similar. But to be useful and honest, I would have to admit that the ways they differ are more significant to understanding the world I live in and how to take ethical action.
I believe you can make lists of a bunch of extraneous matter to avoid admitting to your harsh and narrow view point.
I believe trolls are beyond logic,as is your argument(s).
Thanks for the unsubstantiated insult and attempt to discredit. That speaks loudly about those who utilize such tactics.
Funny all this begins simply because I noted that Vindman and Tripp are similar in the roles they played during the respective impeachments, their ultimate impact, and the subsequent effects to their lives. How trollish of me, however, I am quite confident in this logic whether or not folks are able to pull their heads from the sand and appreciate it.