Subject:
|
Re: With Saddam's sons dead, now we just need to bag dad (Baghdad get it?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:07:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
284 times
|
| |
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
|
|
If youre willing to excuse Cheneys business practices as business not
politics, and if youre therefore willing to overlook those practices from
subsequent evaluations of his character or fitness-for-office, then surely you
must likewise be willing to overlook the personal relationships of Bill
Clinton as personal, not politics. Am I correct in this assessment?
|
Let me say this, Dave! I wont defend big business. I am not a fan of big
business, nor am I a fan of big government. Big in these areas is bad IMO,
inevitabley leading to corruption and abuse of power. I dont know any
specifics about Cheney, but on the surface I would be skeptical, given his
previous status.
Nor am I a fan of the super-wealthy in general. I dont know how one can
morally be super wealthy and not be a philanthropist. But even if I find
super-wealthy selfish people morally reprehensible, I still dont favor taking
their wealth by force by the government...
As for Clinton, I found his behavior morally reprehensible as well. What I most
objected to in his sex scandal was the denegration of the Executive Office while
he occupied it. His personal life is his business, but when it spilled out into
the public it was just embarrassing.
So, if you want to say: Cheney = ethically questionable businessman = Clinton =
morally questionable politician. Fine.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
26 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|