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: TigerPaw who wrote (81491)	11/18/2000 9:24:14 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

<<Bush never won Florida, he merely tried to call a stop to the election before it was finished and while he was ahead. That's not winning, that's a cheap shot.>> He won it twice plus a selected recount.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (81491)	11/18/2000 10:08:11 PM
From: username	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

You seem to be a rational person, and I appreciate that. All I am saying is that it makes no difference what you think or belive happened. In a court of law, what usually matters is what actually happened in the real world. I am also saying that I understand completely that you are pleading for some "reevaluation" of the law or for some "slant" on the law that has heretofore not been applied. Bush won the election. Then he won the recount. Then Gore filed a lawsuit and took this election into a place where no other presidential election has gone. Once he did that, we went into the Twilight Zone. It's really not that big of a deal in the great scheme of things. All this will be history at some point in the near future, and life will go on. But a legacy of mistrust has been created in the last 8 years, and there is no denying it. You have some deep personal reason for supporting what Gore is trying to do, and for arguing so vehemently about it, and that is fine with me. I see it as a threat to the Constitution of the United States, and you see it as some sort of noble fight for intolerance of injustice. If that deep personal reason for your arguments has something to do with breaking the law, then I humbly suggest that you are on weak ground in this particular case. If it has something to do with somebody else breaking the law, then I respectfully submit to you that you have chosen to side with a group of immoral men that will turn on you the moment it suits their own personal interests. Nobody but a fool thinks that this world is perfect. One of the sides here believes that people are victims and cannot exist without help. Theirs is the politics of despair. The other side believes that people are responsible for their lot in life, and that the more they can do for themselves, the less help they will need from anybody else. Many times you can tell which side they are on simply by listening to them talk. The politics of despair is an angry rhetoric which believes that the ends justify the means, and is quick to interrupt. The other guys don't assume you cannot exist without some sort of help from them. In the final analysis, politics takes a back seat to honesty, honor, and character. I'm not saying any politician has an overabundance of those qualities, and I certainly am not claiming that I am more righteous than the next fellow, but if you have abandoned these qualities, or are ready to abandon them, you will eventually lose to someone who has not. What goes around, comes around.