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: Bill who wrote (9051)	11/17/1999 5:49:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Exactly. But what really intrigues me is the disparity in treatment that Bush vs. Gore/Clinton seem to enjoy in the press. We've had weeks of hounding Bush over unsubstantiated rumors of drug use. Yet nothing about Clinton's alleged rape of Juanita Broaddrick which seems to be supported pretty well on a prima facie basis at least, Gore's purported plan to flee to Canada rather than serve in Vietnam and Gore's letter to his parents stating his loathing of our fascist military. We have Clinton on TV with the absolute unmitigated gall to state that his Lewinsky affair perjury and obstruction of justice were really a historic fight for Constitutional rights. Makes me puke. Where are the media watchdogs? JLA

To: Bill who wrote (9051)	11/17/1999 7:50:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

We agree as to what Armstrong's "impression" was, and probably as to what Bush's personal, visceral preference would be. ("Parading around" is a straw man, and a rather gratuitous one, applied to a diplomat and not a Gay Easter Parade participant, as surely you must know.) (BTW, George Senior had no such screen for his appointments.) This is what Bush said, according to the same source you accept, and I do, re what Bush could personally "live with": <<<What he said was that although he wouldn't fire anyone who was in position and then was discovered to be a homosexual, he would not "knowingly" appoint a practicing homosexual as an ambassador or department head. You may not consider a statement that he would not knowingly appoint a gay to be anti-gay. I do. I don't think it means he hates gays personally. I think it merely means he is willing to accommodate those who do, at least in this campaign period. I am wondering whether you consider, abstractly, a policy of not promoting anyone you "know" to be gay, but instead only promoting those you "know" to be straight, an "anti-gay policy." Will you answer that question as a hypothetical, instead of saying he didn't mean that, we haven't really read it, someone's impression is something more innocuous-sounding... Will you answer the simple question, "If a president were to promise not to promote people he knew to be gay, would that be, to you, an anti-gay position?" I think you won't answer it. I think JLA won't, either. I think you will both state things you think Bush means, or thinks, using, as you just did, as an authority the "impression" of the very person who quoted Bush as saying he wouldn't knowingly appoint a gay... But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you will answer this hypothetical question about whether IF a presidential candidate said what Bush was REPORTED as saying, would that, then, hypothetically, represent an anti-gay policy? JLA asks the question why so little has been made of Clinton's rape of Juanita Broderick. I agree that that is astonishing. I have mentioned my complete belief that Clinton is a rapist on the feelies thread more than once. President Clinton is a rapist.