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: jlallen who wrote (9157)	11/19/1999 1:43:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Where did I convict or judge? I reported what the group of Christian conservatives said Bush said, and offered my very sound reasons for finding it credible while asking for some sound ones for believing that the statement of these Christian conservatives, that Bush had said he would not knowingly appoint a homosexual as a department head or ambassador, was a lie. The only argument for it's untruthfulness that I have been given is that their "impression," which does NOT contradict their statement that he said he would not appoint a gay as dept head or ambassador if it is understood to attach to the sentiment nearest to it, that he also wouldn't fire a gay who was already appointed, should be believed as contradicting their statement instead of supplementing it. And I have, in detail, supported my reasons for believing in the truthful nature of the statement of the group, and also of their impression, which I take to mean that Bush wouldn't fire a gay who was doing fine in the job. I find it odd that you believe these people are lying when there would be no reason for them too; or that there is a deep contradiction in their report of a flat statement made by Bush and their overall impression, when there is no reason to see the two as contradictory if you realize that Bush can live with a low profile already-appointed gay, but won't knowingly appoint a gay himself. This is reading and assessing the source, not "convicting." Every time you read a report of some position taken, you look at its context, at the credibility in that context of its source, at whether there have been denials or conflicting statements, at the cui bono question, and you draw a conclusion. These Christian conservatives said the Bush said he would not knowingly appoint a homosexual as department head or ambassador. And that he also wouldn't fire one in position simply because he was gay. Does this strike you as inherently non-credible? Just too shocking on the face of it to be true? Or is it the Christian conservatives you find non-credible?