To: E who wrote (15259 ) 3/14/2000 3:00:00 PM From: Neocon Read Replies (2) | Respond to
Actually, I never quoted you as saying "supports", I said that you had put the question "into play". This is the sequence:Message 13156107 Message 13166422 Message 13187602 It gives an idea of the sort of "social policy" Olasky supports, which you made an issue....... Message 13186790 I made no issue whatever of the "sort of social policy Olasky supports." Message 13187602 His position is as an advisor on social policy, which you reiterated a couple of times, and therefore it was a point at issue....... Message 13187846 Message 13188015 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. Message 13188056 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. Message 13188077
