🚀 go-pugleaf

"John Smith" <John@cox.com> wrote in message news:<_OH49.24707$5E1.21875@news2.central.cox.net>...
> "SD Anderson" <102250.1425@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:ad847902.0208082013.38f094c9@posting.google.com...
> > justin@cjteam.com (justin) wrote in message
>  news:<886c066.0208080718.508c8@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > Let me ask you this.  If it is noone's business that Condit sleeps
> > > with women outside of his marriage, then why the HELL is it any of
> > > your business what Bush and Cheney did with their stock in their
> > > respective comanies?  What's the difference there?  It's their
> > > personal business, right?
> >
> 
> Sleeping with women outside of his marriage wasn't illegal, but it was
> immoral.  Insider trading and accounting fraud IS illegal as well as
> immoral.
> 
> THAT is the difference!!
> 
> >
> > > See, the problem is, you think you can
> > > honestly separate a man's personal character from his political
> > > actions.  Yet you cannot.  If a congressman is a sleazy bastard in his
> > > personal life, he is likely to be a sleazy businessman or congressman.
>  
>  
> > > If he has no morals, and will sleep with someone else, why wouldn't he
> > > sell secrets to the chinese or take money under the table from special
> > > interest groups?
> 
> Because he hasn't!  One can't condemn someone for doing something that he
> hasn't done "yet" merely on the speculation that he might do it.  If your
> premise were correct, how do we know Bush won't go on another alcoholic
> bender (he's admitted that he's an alcoholic - in his words "was", but once
> an alcoholic always one) and destroy the world thinking he's playing
> nintendo?

   Alchohol is legal for adults.  let's go to white powder from
Columbia for a bit.

   Bush's statement about not doing cocaine had a qualifier, something
like 'not since 1974' rather than 'never'.  Even the hard core
Republican fanboys I know or have posted with tend to read that as "I,
George W. Bush, used cocaine back in the early 70s."

   Using Justin's argument, we don't know that a man who broke drug
laws wouldn't refuse to sell secrets to the Chinese.

   Justin, the phrase you ought to look up in law books is "Presumed
Innocent".