Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Catfish who wrote (3087)	8/15/1999 10:57:00 PM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

He's actually not "my boy"--I voted for Dole and would again (Bob that is). I don't know about Clinton's sense of shame; I assume he has none. You're missing my point. You can't anoint yourself as a moral guardian, and live a life at odds with this without creating an ugly spectacle. I mean, don't you get a little queasy remembering Newt and Dan Burton's calls for the Ten Commandments to be posted in schools while Newt was actively violating at least two of them, and Burton was covering up an adulterous affair that resulted in a child? I think we undermine morality when we excuse any improper conduct by pointing to other improper conduct we deem worse. Since Clinton sickens me, your attempt to undermine my criticisms of the adulterous Republicans on the ground of hypocrisy makes no sense. Now, if I said Clinton was a great moral leader and criticized the "private" actions of Gingrich while Speaker, then you could say that I had no right to call Gingrich despicable. But that's all you would establish--you wouldn't be proving that Gingrich leads a moral life, or is not himself a hypocrite. Your arguments are what are referred to in logic as "sophisms." In other words, you don't answer the point; you just attack the speaker. An extreme example illustrates the point: let us say that Charles Manson in an interview declares: "Murder is wrong!" He's correct in what he says, and the fact the he himself is a murderer doesn't undermine the truth of his statement. Likewise, if James Carville were to state: "Gingrich is a sickening adulterer", Carville's staunch support of Clinton is, in logic, unrelated to whether his statement about Gingrich is true. Your fuzzy logic confuses the issue of whether a speaker is a hypocrite, with whether what that speaker has said is accurate. And confusing those two things is sloppy thinking.

To: Catfish who wrote (3087)	8/15/1999 11:18:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Actually, Bush has been accused of being present during some date rape incidents at some fraternity parties in college. The Austin papers did some stories on this during the impeachment trial... no one is saying Bush was directly involved, but he was there and that is bad enough - IF you choose to present yourself as a leader of the moral police. Honestly I really think you guys should step back and read the last 20 posts or so. You are constantly trying to defend the behavior of these guys... Livingstone is "not as bad" as Clinton... Bush, well yeah he has his problems but they aren't the same... blah blah... give me a break! The republican leaders are the ones who chose to take this stance on personal behavior - now its your problem to deal with. Remember when Lott said "bad conduct" was grounds for impeachment, Clinton lied about inhaling, etc. etc. Well, cocaine is worse than inhaling pot and Bush is lying about it - comments please? I don't even know.. what is the penalty for cocaine possession anyway - a felony? Is buying it a felony? Is alcoholism considered "bad behavior"? I have always felt that none of this stuff is anybody's business and fwiw I think Bush is ok. But what amazes me is that you don't seem to feel any need to back away from this moralizing even though your "leaders" are just as inept in that area as anybody else and perhaps more so! Yikes talk about clueless.