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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (41855)	4/8/1999 1:39:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

The failure to do something in one instance due to contingent circumstances does not prevent anyone from acting differently under different contingencies, nor is the ensuing difference "hypocritical". Suppose, for example, that someone decided that he would not vote to remove Clinton because he thought that Al Gore would destroy the country, but would have voted for removal if he had had more faith in the Vice- President (this is merely a hypothetical, I have no idea if such a consideration entered into anyone's mind). That is why the Framer's made it a political, rather than judicial, proceeding, so that all relevant factors might be taken into account. Because we disagree with the judgement does not mean that the process was a complete failure...Any way, vote your conscience, fine, but conscientiousness also means trying to take into account consequences, not just "purity"...