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: lawdog who wrote (109597)	12/10/2000 2:38:17 PM
From: Don Pueblo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

You are assuming that I oppose any plan to count all the disputed ballots. That seems to be the current mantra from the Democrats as well. That is not the case. You can align my position with the Bush legal stance on all this, but that doesn't mean that's what I am thinking. What I oppose is illegal activity, especially when it is orchestrated for a political end. I think your moral code allows for people to do illegal things if they believe their cause is right and just. I do not disagree with that in principle. I object to political leaders lying to me. I especially object to political leaders lying to me in order to cover up illegal activity. I objected to Nixon's crap. I objected to Clinton's crap. The difference between us, as it is with many of my more liberal friends, is that it appears that you are convinced that lying about one thing does not impair one's judgement and honor in some "unrelated area". To use a stale example, (because it is the one I usually hear) Clinton's illegal activity in the Lewinsky thing does not make him less fit to be president. I contend that honesty and integrity start with personal actions, and expand out to more public actions. It is my belief that if one is dishonest/immoral/criminal in one arena, it has distinct effect on his behavior in all other arenas. In other words, it IS related, not "unrelated". Now, here is the rub: we have to agree on moral standards first, or we will never agree on anything else! If you believe that it is morally acceptable to do what Clinton did, then I have no argument against you! It's right for you, so it's OK that he did it, and there is no problem. Another example: if I am a conservative Christian (I'm not), I might believe it is morally wrong to embrace Buddhism. I would be against a Buddhist president based on moral grounds. If a Buddhist did something that was acceptable morally for him, but violated my moral standards, then I judge him to be wrong. Jerry Falwell KNOWS Barney Frank is evil and cannot possibly function as a spokesman for anyone he knows personally. Barney Frank KNOWS Jerry Falwell is evil and cannot function as a logical humanoid. They could argue forever and neither would convince the other of his "rightness" because they are running on different moral values. The moral values of the United States are different from moral values in other countries. Marines in Saudi Arabia were instructed to NOT have ANY photographs of women with ANY bare skin ANYWHERE in their possession, because it violated Saudi moral values. You and I can argue moral values forever. That's not what I am objecting to here. If I am driving down a road in the middle of the night, and there is nobody else around for miles, and I come up to a stop sign at a deserted intersection where I can see a mile in any direction, I still stop my car. I do it not because I am afraid there might be a cop hiding somewhere, and not because I have some compusion about stop signs. I do it simply because it is the law, and I know what happens to me if I break the law. I agree with you that blocking the count of votes nullifies a citizen's right to vote. That is a noble stance to take. Unfortunately, that's not the stance you've held until after we all found out about the absentee ballots in Florida. Over a million absentee ballots in California were never examined. Where is the Democrat screaming about 'count all the votes' there? There is a moral value split here in the United States, and it has been fanned into a large fire. It started when Al decided to contest the election results in Florida. Battle was joined when Bush then filed a suit with the SC. Yes, I understand that you feel Al had the right, and the moral obligation to contest the election. I do NOT disagree with you! The result has been a furor seen around the world. We are both responsible for it. I notice that you are using words like "thievery", "gestapo", "brownshirt", "KKK", "goons", "moron" and so on, and changing your chant depending on what happens in some court. I'm using the word "liar", and I want to see the law followed. When the United States Supreme Court shuts this circus down, in the interest of the entire country, Al will not quit. I think maybe you will be fanning the flames, calling the Justices partisan, assuming their ruling is based on politics, and so on. Whatever you want to think about WHY it happened, this nonsense will be shut down. It's not good for the republic, and left unchecked, it will get out of hand. The Supreme Court knows that. I hope you understand what I am saying. You don't have to agree with me, I just hope you understand.