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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (29858)	2/16/2004 9:36:05 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793671

Character counts, Karen. It is more important than issues. Funny, that. Just yesterday it was that you told that the "best man" was defined as the one who most agreed with me. Today character reigns supreme. Which is it? If the candidate can't keep his pecker in his pants, he should not run. Look at what ignoring that cost us during Clinton's Administration. If what you mean by that is that candidates with skeletons should not burden us by running, I agree. If you mean that the location of one's pecker is a character issue, I disagree. It can be a character issue if it is operating deceitfully or abusively outside the pants, but just using the damn thing for what it was intended is not a character flaw. Cheating on one's spouse and deceiving one's girlfriend are character flaws. If a man can have an affair without making a victim of either, then there is no character problem. There may be a moral problem in some religious systems, but there is no character problem. Same with lies on a candidate's resume. I agree with you that lies are character issue. The vetting process should screen out those who do not meet basic standards of character. Still, if that screening process failed and you were in the voting booth, would you not vote for a conservative who lied over a socialist with a pristine record in that regard? Don't tell me you would vote for the socialist because that surely would be a lie. <g>