Chef0083, You are right. Actually, though, in those posts, or for sure is the main one, I just asked for people's opinion as to whether or not a person of real character world choose to govern if he did not get more votes than his opponent. It goes against my sense of right and wrong. I don't give a rat's petuti if it's legal. We all know that what is legal and what is just can be different things. I don't expect Bush to concede if he looses the vote. I'm trying to hold up a mirror to the type of Republican who thinks his or her sh!t doesn't stink. Bush probably won not because of Gore but because of the fallout from a massive hate campaign dirrected for years against Clinton. It wasn't my intention to point out that Gore has character, only to say that the candidate, who, I think played on people's sense of moral outrage by cloaking himself in tha mantle of 'character' is a fraud and a hipocrite. His character is a matter of political posturing and strategy. Since I value real morality, I hate to see it used this way. It's morally outrageous. The campaign could have been about political vision and what's best for the country, not about spending millions to tar the other as a liar and ones self as 'just say no to blowjobs'. If Gore's character is no better than Bushes than I guess they are both scum or saints (___) because we are all the same. Yes we are talking about politicians here.
saxman, the reason that character is rare is because it requires a person to be blind to the lesser self. Most people call that stupid.
saxman, the reason that character is rare is because it requires a person to be blind to the lesser self. Most people call that stupid.
Facebook
Twitter