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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (988)	1/15/2001 11:42:09 AM
From: GROUND ZERO™	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Thanks for your reply...<g> I already posted my thoughts about these issues on this thread prior to your posts..... But why do you feel it necessary to make guarded comments when a question is posed to you? It's becomes difficult to main a meaningful conversation with anyone who takes this kind of posture during a discussion? I enjoy good conversation with others here on this thread, but you continue to make asides that are superfluous and nonessential..... >>Yes- I know exactly how serious they are. I always give a serious response and am not posturing for an audience- so I know exactly what this is about. But no matter.<< GZ

To: epicure who wrote (988)	1/15/2001 12:40:36 PM
From: hobo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I would never keep an adulterer from office, or from being a financial advisor or a doctor, or anything else- i agree. and the worst part is the circus that the media, (and other radical groups), make out of the scrutiny of an individual to see if he or she is capable to run for office. This has kept very bright and capable people from even considering the possibility of running. is the strict morality in matters that are personal and bear little or no relevance to the job in question, a reasonable cost to place on society, given that the alternative could be to have a puppet as leader? this leader could have been placed by a cartel of handlers who deems him "moraly certifiable" i assume that the questionable morality suggests that if he or she has not kept a strict moral code in his personal life, then we ask: how could he be expected to conduct himself or herself with integrity in the running of a public office? if so, then, how will we know what is the real agenda of those who handle the puppet? yes, s/he passed the moral test but s/he is a mere figure head? not knowing such agenda and worse, not even knowing what sort the morality of the individuals who make up such cartel of handlers is an even larger risk, than choosing a specific candidate, who has proven to be a good leader in matters of public office, yet as an adulterer, s/he would be disqualified on the spot. no we do not live in a perfect world, that is true, but attempting to reach what is unreachable and rule with an iron fist while doing it, is not going to make the world any better, nor make us humans more perfect, (assuming a specific standard, that may not even be applicable to a large segment of the population). human nature is what it is... whose morality are we going to strictly apply ? usually the more evil the group, the higher the chance that such group will be in power. look it up it is all there throughout our history ... government run by zealots are the most oppressive, one run by a tolerant mentality seems more humane. yes, there must be limits i agree too. but to your statement above, i agree that an adulterer should not be kept from holding a position of importance, if he/she has proven to be a good and efficient individual in reference to the job in question. particularly if, in order to expel the adulterer from power creates a circus much greater than the offence with which he is charged. further, what cost and benefits did this circus bear on the 'santity' of the office that supposedly was the objective of the zeal with which the attack was mounted? will we ever know ? i guess that it is always good to have in mind that costs and gains are all relative to the risks one takes.