: I never said that! Please read my posts. The closest I came was my
: original post which said that I didn't think it was wise to vote for
: someone who we already knew had a mental illness, which was a subtle
: sarcastic joke about most politicians being mentally ill but we don't
: know it.
: Either it was too subtle, you guys just want to argue, or you are all
: rampaging Democrats who would vote one of those hairless cats into
: office if it went with the part line.
Aye, too subtle for this raging commie pinko liberal scum. :-)
: BD> I agree that polititians /should/ be stable individuals.
: However, I don't
: BD> think it's always the case that they are, and I don't think that the
: BD> diagnosis of a treatable mental illness should be a red flag
: that removes
: BD> them from your consideration. I think it is a point to
: ponder, and a reason
: BD> to look at their performance history, but shouldn't we be
: doing that anyway?
: BD> I just don't think it's fair to rule them out based on a
: chemical imbalance.
:
: Exactly what I have been trying to say, but put more eloquently.
Apparently I misunderstood. It sounded to me as if you were making mental
illness a disqualifying factor, rather than one factor of many to weigh and
consider. I apologize if I read too much into it.
--Ben Doom
Programmer & General Lackey
Moonbow Software
______________________________________________________________________
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
