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: greenspirit who wrote (14922)	3/11/2000 2:39:00 PM
From: E	Respond to of 769670

I've addressed this clearly already. <<<No, the only ones who are shills for the Reverend SMM are those who get paid to use their influence and prestige to advance the interests of their payer, especially when the only reason they are doing it is for money, and personal conviction is not involved. I made that clear. Why do I have to keep saying the same thing over and over again? It is just too frustrating.>>> A shill, literally, is paid to dupe others into a disreputable situation of some sort. They aren't "sincere" in their advocacy, and they are specifically using their talents for the direct purpose of promoting the dubious cause, and they derive personal benefit from the promotion. You might call them a type of "lobbyist." Bush satisfies that criterion, as I have shown. Your other examples don't, and are silly. The Moonies are an evil, disreputable cause, and Bush, for money and money alone, used his prestige as an ex president to push their cause. I suspect he was ignorant about the depths of their evil. Also, I am not talking about a "shrill," I am talking about a "shill." There are all kinds of shills. Some of them, the most loudly vocal, can be shrill. Others earn their fees simply by showing up with their good names and sitting smiling at a dais, issuing positive platitudes about family values. Both kinds do it for the same reason. The reason is not the same as Joan's for writing articles on various subjects and publishing them in the Washington Times. Joan is not there to undertake the the job of giving Moon prestige. (Some people don't write for the Washington Times, though, because any connection at all, even a non-lobbying one, with Moon bothers them.) None of this is subtle or complicated, unless one wills it to be.