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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (1028)	5/9/2003 12:32:50 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

There's absolutely no comparison between the two fact cases. It's nice you got one thing right.

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (1028)	5/9/2003 10:14:46 AM
From: tsigprofit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20773

Raymond, I couldn't have said it better, comparing Clinton and Bush as you have here. The problem with many moderates, and the left, is that they allow the right wing conservatives to viciously attack all Democrats and moderates without responding. This has led to our current situation with Bush II. I hope people in this country wake up, and get off their duffs and vote in 2004 - so we send him back to Texas (or Maine). t

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (1028)	5/9/2003 10:18:41 AM
From: tsigprofit	Respond to of 20773

I really like this. I am keeping it for future reference. Thanks again for posting it: You willfully mischaracterize Clinton. If you are unaware of the history, Clinton was legitimately opposed to the immoral Viet Nam aggression that the U.S. was engaged in in the 1960's. He worked within the system to secure a valid set of deferments to avoid service in a crime he was morally opposed to. The same facts do not apply to George Bush, who was given a special privileged and unearned position in the Texas National Air Guard. Then he abused the privilege by failing to show up for a medical that would point out his cocaine use. Then he went AWOL for 14 months. There's absolutely no comparison between the two fact cases.

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (1028)	5/12/2003 2:23:38 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

"There's absolutely no comparison between the two fact cases." I agree that these particular comparisons do not line up. Personally, I have a high regard for people who meet their inner demons head on and deal with them. It is no secret that Bush sowed some wild oats in his youth, as did clinton. Bush has grown to be a different man now, having struggled to change and develop a strong character. clinton (and hillory) claimed to have worked through his issues prior to taking office but...oh well. Theoretically, there are those who are given the silver spoon at birth and never have their metal tested. I wouldn't support a leader who didn't have a history of struggling and winning against his opponents as well as demonstrating that he had developed some self-discipline around his own sensitivities. There are those who when challenged, show themselves to be base cowards and liars (clinton); and those who meet challenges to their character and leadership in an honorable manner (Bush, so far).