Subj : Re: Ethics test
To   : alt.tv.farscape
From : Nick
Date : Mon Sep 12 2005 04:18:02

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape

John Iwaniszek wrote:

> Trouble <troubleNOSPAM@tekfactory.com> wrote in
> news:Fvudnb7BRcMty7nenZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com: 
> 
>> John Iwaniszek wrote:
>> 
>>> Speaking strictly from a utilitarian point of view:  There
>>> seemed at the time more value in saving Clinton than there did
>>> in saving Bush. History has since borne out the validity of that
>>> judgement. 
>> 
>> Why? In another post you just said good on anybody for getting
>> out of Vietnam, why bring in your specific Bush=Bad, Clinton=Good
>> value judgements now.
>> 
> 
> I think the comparison is obvious.  It's like any hiring decision
> or decision to allocate scarce resources. It's done on the basis
> of merit.  Clinton was the superior candidate.  Nothing about Bush
> at the time recommended him for any postion of responsibility or
> trust.  Clinton earned the respect of his peers, elders and the
> Rhodes Scholoarship committee.  He was clearly the better man and
> should nothave been wasted in a futile war against a chimerical
> enemy. 

I am very disappointed in your inability to be even remotely 
objective.

.