BF2S Forums Charles Rangel charged with multiple ethics violations

Do you think accomplishments, aka something to be proud of, includes dishonorable actions?

And you seem to remember in an another thread what my response was no?

You can't compare Rangel with MLK without including their accomplishments.

But I'll help:
Rangel broke the law.

Did MLK?

Pug wrote:

And you seem to remember in an another thread what my response was no?

You can't compare Rangel with MLK without including their accomplishments.

But I'll help:
Rangel broke the law.

Did MLK?

Ummmm Plagiarism? isn't there a law against that? How about copy rights? Thanks for the help.

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

And you seem to remember in an another thread what my response was no?

You can't compare Rangel with MLK without including their accomplishments.

But I'll help:
Rangel broke the law.

Did MLK?

Ummmm Plagiarism? isn't there a law against that? How about copy rights? Thanks for the help.

Nope.  It's a 'crime' in academia, and someone can sue you if their works are still protected, but we can't be sure that the ones in MLK's case were. 

Basically, not a crime.

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

And you seem to remember in an another thread what my response was no?

You can't compare Rangel with MLK without including their accomplishments.

But I'll help:
Rangel broke the law.

Did MLK?

Ummmm Plagiarism? isn't there a law against that? How about copy rights? Thanks for the help.

Nope.  It's a 'crime' in academia, and someone can sue you if their works are still protected, but we can't be sure that the ones in MLK's case were. 

Basically, not a crime.

Plagiarism isn't a crime to Kagan.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Plagiarism isn't a crime to Kagan.

It's not a criminal matter, but you can be sued over it.  To an academic, it's a death sentence for your career and reputation (and it ought to be), but it is certainly not a crime.

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

Feel free to prove to me that Rangel and MLK are the same situation and I'll respond.

Never said they are in the same situation... WHere the fuck do you get this shit from?

They have both been proven immoral and lacking integrity.

And you are telling me I can't condemn Rangel because of another unrelated thread?

You have posted several times in this thread that you believe there is inconsistent treatment between Rangel & MLK.  I'm explaining why.  You are pretending I never explained anything at all, so I guess I'm just making all this up.

lowing wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

lowing wrote:

Watch it! He was part of the civil rights movement so you have to take his WHOLE character into mind. Thus his civil rights involvement must out weigh whatever else he has done. I wonder, do you even believe the bullshit you try to pass on?

You do realise you're the only one here bringing up his race and civil rights movements and such. Nobody else even hinted towards any of that. Everyone else in the thread is just seeing him as another corrupt politician, but you're seeing it as a corrupt civil rights leader and bringing attention to his race and such.

You do realize YOU are the only one that has mentioned his race don't you? Here is a news flash, there were white people involved in the civil rights movement as well.

My comment goes toward his bullshit argument in another thread.

Really?

The argument in the other thread has been brought into this thread.  Am I to assume the two are unrelated and you didn't want to drag that argument into this one?

Is that why you posted this?  So we WOULDN'T compare the the two?

Explain to me the relevance of your fucked up post above then.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Plagiarism isn't a crime to Kagan.

SenorToenails wrote:

It's not a criminal matter, but you can be sued over it.  To an academic, it's a death sentence for your career and reputation (and it ought to be), but it is certainly not a crime.

Plagarism may constitute criminal copyright infringement.

It may also open you (and your employer or academic institution) up to civil liabilities, if your plagiarism touches on original research eventually used in a patent.

In short, if you want to lie, cheat, and steal to get ahead in life - be prepared to get hammered for it when you eventually get caught.  You can always try to lie, cheat, steal, plead, spin, or blackmail your way out of those difficulties too.  Double down, place your bets, take your chances!


But, if you have the right skin color or ethnic backround, you may be able to get out of it by claiming The Man is trying to hold you down.
(or, you might get extra special attention for having the wrong skin color.  YMMV.)

[sarcasm]Isn't clouding things with race such a productive way to clear up an otherwise straightforward argument?[/sarcasm]

Last edited by rdx-fx (2010-08-04 15:47:38)

Turquoise wrote:

Well, to be more accurate, plagiarism can be charged as a civil crime.  You can't sue someone over something that isn't criminal -- there always has to be a criminal aspect to the action, whether it's plagiarism, neglect, malice, etc.

yeah I think Pug has pretty well abandoned that argument by now.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, to be more accurate, plagiarism can be charged as a civil crime.  You can't sue someone over something that isn't criminal -- there always has to be a criminal aspect to the action, whether it's plagiarism, neglect, malice, etc.

yeah I think Pug has pretty well abandoned that argument by now.

Well, I would still make the assertion that plagiarism pales in comparison to the achievements of MLK.

Now...  I can't say I hold Rangel in that high of a regard.  His crimes appear to be much more serious.

we have already discussed this....MLK has no integrity, morality or integrity, his accomplishments not withstanding. I mean hell Nixon was accomplished, it does not stop his detractors from pointing out he was a "crook".

Whatever MLK accomplished, he did so under a guise of lies and immoral behavior both academically as well as socially. there is no escaping that.

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, I would still make the assertion that plagiarism pales in comparison to the achievements of MLK.

Now...  I can't say I hold Rangel in that high of a regard.  His crimes appear to be much more serious.

we have already discussed this....MLK has no integrity, morality or integrity, his accomplishments not withstanding. I mean hell Nixon was accomplished, it does not stop his detractors from pointing out he was a "crook".

Whatever MLK accomplished, he did so under a guise of lies and immoral behavior both academically as well as socially. there is no escaping that.

No lowing I haven't abadoned the argument.  I've told you why...pretty much exactly what Turq says here.

Okay, first, you said

lowing wrote:

Never said they are in the same situation... WHere the fuck do you get this shit from?

Now its:

lowing wrote:

Because this asshole ( Rangel) like the other asshole ( MLK) was involved in the civil rights movement and therefore, according to your logic, should be exempt from answering for or atone for, his lack of character, morality, and integrity. I mean this cocksucker ( Rangel) is "accomplished"...............RIGHT?

First: I get this shit from YOU.

Second: This is the same argument I have used with Palin.  Their accomplishments and their indiscretions should be relatively close to each other to make a comparison.  Since this is you driving the boat, I've asked you to compare their accomplishments or prove that the situations are related...since you are insisting these folks should be treated the same.

They are not in the same situation, mainly Rangels infractions are in real time and he ca nbe punished for them.

As I have said, you asked for a comparison of accomplishments ( after I ask for a reason why one should be afforded privacy and the other shouldn't) so I compared thier accomplishments, I never said Palin was better than MLK in any catergory except where it counts character. He is a proven piece of shit, and she is not. Really regarding character, there is no comparison. MLK is no better than Rangel in that regard.

Pug wrote:

Right, and I started the same debate in this thread with "well, lets compare everything about the person" to see if it's a fair comparison.

My opinion is the two are different in terms of accomplishments and infractions.

So the logic of "they are involved with civil rights so therefore they are above the law" argument you attempted to assign to me at the beginning of this Rangel issue is completely false.

Aka, grind ax elsewhere.

Only difference between MLK and Rangel is MLK didn't have enough time to be the cock sucker Rangel is. there is nothing in MLK's unscrupulous behavior to suggest he would have stopped there. I mean hell if will cheat on his loved ones as well as steal the works of others, do you really think he was incapable of more?

Last edited by lowing (2010-08-05 09:55:41)