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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (193896)	7/9/2004 9:15:07 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575866

The law? How about the right.......they put Paula Jones up to it. Clinton set himself up by signing the law. Other people have to deal with it, Clinton shouldn't be above it. If it is a bad law it should be repealed but there shouldn't be one law for Bill Clinton and another for everyone else. No, you still don't have it right. Clinton got set up because he was a successful Dem. president that the GOP had trouble bringing down. They all creamed in their pants when they found out Clinton had cheated and used it to get at him. As for the right putting Paula Jones up to it - If sexual harassment law as it stands is just, and if Paula Jones was telling the truth then I don't see how the right "putting her up to it" (if they did) is really important. If she is lying then I would put primary blame one her for lying and perjuring herself. If it could be proved she could face severe legal penalties unlike Clinton who mostly got away with perjury. Paula Jones never claimed sexual harassment until the GOP put her up to it. She even admitted that recently. That's other as in someone else besides the person who filed the harassment suit. Of course, you mean the GOP again. No. Clinton did not have "sexual behavior" with "the GOP", and "the GOP is not his subordinate. Once again ""The law made his sexual behavior with other subordinates an issue, even consensual sexual behavior." Once again.......the GOP managed to turn an issue of adultery into sexual harassment. You all should be ashamed. The B premise is best on the majority of your posts.......which have been much more for Bush than against. "Much more for Bush than against", does not equal "a strong and enthusiastic supporter of Bush." I'll vote for Bush, and I defend him against charges that I think are false, but I'm far from enthusiastic about him. I wasn't enthusiastic about his father either. The closest I've been to enthusiastic about any president or presidential candidate was Reagan, but even then I think my feelings fell a little short of that term. I'm not really a man of wild enthusiasms, or strong emotional swings. I never said that you were "a strong and enthusiastic" supporter. I said you were biased in favor of Bush. And its common knowledge that the first commandment of the GOP is loyalty to a fellow Republican. I have a few serious concerns about GW, starting with his high spending. I have quite a number of more minor or nuanced concerns about him. But if I am projecting a balanced or nuanced attitude about say the situation in Iraq, that puts me at odds with those who say it is an unmitigated disaster. Then as soon as I say it isn't I am all of the sudden I'm "defending Bush" or to use your more recent term I am for him rather then against him. Sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees. You need to get honest.......you may not love Bush but he stands for GOP [not even conservative] values and you will support him to the death. Your feigned attempt at some kind of objectivity is just that.......feigned IMO I am unclear what you understand logic to be but if someone supports a person who is damaging the country than their first priority has to be either the person or themselves rather than the country. If politician X is going to be a disaster for this country. It might be because 1 - He hates the country and doesn't have its best interest at heart, or 2 - He doesn't hate the country but he care more for himself, or his friends or some special interest then the country as a whole so once again he doesn't have the countries best interest at heart, or 3 - He loves the country and has its best interest at heart but he is mistaken about how to achieve those interests. A voter for politician X can have the best interest of the country at heart even if scenario 1 is true and the politician hates the country. This voter could be mistaken about politician X. And of course all of this assumes not only that the country is headed towards disaster but the "politician X" is leading us there. I don't think that our country is headed to disaster and I think some of Bush's policies make disaster less likely, but even if your thoughts about Bush are true it wouldn't make my plan to vote for him equivalent to "not having the best interests of our country at heart". Sorry but I've lost your point. Lets leave it. ted