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: E who wrote (15073)	3/13/2000 12:05:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 769667

Message 13155762 All of the people named positively trumpet their religious identifications and intolerance....I think it's odd that you think it is a mystery, what constitutes issues involving "social ethics." George W. Bush certainly thinks there's such a category, or he wouldn't have assigned himself an advisor in the area, the Biblical inerrantist Olasky. Thus, I posted a sample of his lack of bigotry from a C-SPAN interview, and an example of the sort of policy positions he is known for, and for which he was likely recruited by the Bush campaign.......

To: E who wrote (15073)	3/13/2000 12:10:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Message 13155093 We are being offered egregious choices. As I've indicated before, many people will be making choices about the presidency based on attitudes toward the advisors/supporters these clowns appear to be surrounded with. In the case of GWB, he seems to be hemmed in tightly by his father, a highly paid (millions) shill for the Moonies; theocratician Pat Robertson; and his ethics advisor Marvin Olasky, whose notions on social ethics are based on a belief that the Bible is inerrant. And that's just the gang active in the social policy advice-giving sector of W's entourage. I'm sure Gore has some ding dongs hanging around too, but they'd have to be pretty spectacular to compete with these bozos. Of course, when I called you on Robertson, you denied saying he was an advisor, and now you are denying putting Olasky's views on social policy at issue......