Justice?

[franalexes]

they do nothing about his lies that cost us billions of dollars and many a brave solider
Jerseygirl Jen[/QUOTE]

The THEY you are talking about was a democrat congress.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by franalexes

they do nothing about his lies that cost us billions of dollars and many a brave solider
Jerseygirl Jen

The THEY you are talking about was a democrat congress.[/QUOTE]


Fran i fear you have being hanging with Tracy far too long as you seemed to have forgotten that when W lied the house and sen where under GOP control and was controlled by the same members that wanted to impeach Clinton for getting a BJ so the way it looks is that getting a BJ is the worst thing ever but starting a war on lies is okie dookie as long as you are GOP
Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

Congress talks about jobs while they provide tax incentives to move jobs overseas. GE and other multinationals play games and avoid paying any taxes. What is the justice in that?

[smc]

A wise man once said that trying to have a rational discussion with people who do not understand the simple concept of moral inequivalency is perhaps the greatest waste of time to which humans wrongly aspire.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

A wise man once said that trying to have a rational discussion with people who do not understand the simple concept of moral inequivalency is perhaps the greatest waste of time to which humans wrongly aspire.

There is lots of discussions about moral equivalency on the internet but I could find nothing on moral inequivalency. Would you care to elaborate on its meaning?

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

There is lots of discussions about moral equivalency on the internet but I could find nothing on moral inequivalency. Would you care to elaborate on its meaning?

It is simply my way of stating that the false moral equivalence so often proposed by some (e.g., invading Iraq on a lie or getting a blowjob from a White House interns as having some sort of moral equivalence in the pantheon of presidential behavior) should more correctly and accurately be called moral inequivalence.

In other words, the false moral equivalence established in arguments reveals moral inequivalence.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

It is simply my way of stating that the false moral equivalence so often proposed by some (e.g., invading Iraq on a lie or getting a blowjob from a White House interns as having some sort of moral equivalence in the pantheon of presidential behavior) should more correctly and accurately be called moral inequivalence.

In other words, the false moral equivalence established in arguments reveals moral inequivalence.

It would appear that since WWII our foreign policy has been to a great extent been based on, as you say "moral inequivalance".
Justice continues to take a back seat. For example, the recent trade agreement with Columbia favors our multinational corporations instead of the local farmers of Columbia.
NAFTA was a moral disaster causing severe disruption in Mexico and consequent migration of dispossessed farmers to the US.