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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (18205)	7/25/2002 9:14:26 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

And the proof for that (false) statement is....? Once when I was a young bride, talking to a colleague and friend of my husband, I must have been sounding starry-eyed and laying it on a bit thick because he snapped at me, "You mean that his shit don't stink?" I remember that incident partly for its abruptness and partly because I wasn't used to such language. I'm reminded of that when I watch you and Bill and others talking about Bush. It provokes in me much the same response as that friend of my husband. I think that Steve's point is that, as a class, politicians are a tad shady and Bush is likely no exception. You keep making him out to be a saint. From what I know about him, it seems very unlikely that he would cheat on Laura, let alone in the Oval Office. Different people have different weaknesses and different opportunities for weakness. This mantra about Bush being perfect... Well, the role of the blushing bride doesn't become you.

To: jlallen who wrote (18205)	7/25/2002 12:12:26 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Let's just say that you seemed disproportionately concerned with the bending of the rules when it was Clinton doing the bending, and disproportionately unconcerned over certain other incidents. Iran/Contra comes readily to mind. It's amazing how quick people are to blame things on the chief executive when the executive is one they dislike. It's easy to find people who will blame the excesses of '90s accounting on Clinton's moral example, but if you point out the flourishing trade in dodginess that went on during Reagan's watch (junk bond scandal, S&L scandal, etc.), the responsibility must be elsewhere. I've seen people on SI place the blame for the bombing of the USS Cole squarely on Clinton, but refuse to consider blaming Reagan for the bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut. It's the same phenomenon that you see when TP talks about Clinton: "but I liked him, of course he could do no wrong". Partisanship is such an odd phenomenon.