--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" > <shempmcgurk@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" > > > <shempmcgurk@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Investor's Business Daily > > > > > > Cooling Down The Climate Scare > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > What the public needs -- and deserves -- is a credible > voice > > to > > > > > > counter the sermons from Gore, on whose behalf cigarettes > > were > > > > > > distributed in 2000 to Milwaukee homeless people who were > > > > > > recruited by campaign volunteers to cast absentee ballots. > > > > > > > > > > With this single sentence, the writer of this > > > > > editorial has completely discredited him/herself. > > > > > > > > Why? > > > > > > Isn't it obvious? > > > > > > The writer is so biased and so devoid of logic > > > s/he tries to use a rather spectacularly ridiculous > > > guilt-by-association tactic to cast doubt on > > > *Gore's* credibility. > > > > > > Giving the writer the benefit of the doubt that > > > this actually happened as described, it obviously > > > wasn't *Gore* who directed the recruiters to give > > > out cigarettes. > > > > What's good for the goose is good for the gander. > > > > Then, Judy, you must be consistent in your application of that > > standard: those campaign workers for Bush in (I think it was) South > > Carolina in 2000 who attacked John McCain for having a brown- > > skinned daughter (the one they adopted from Bangladesh) should not > > be associated with Bush and Bush should not suffer politically from > > that either. > > Not with Bush personally, but almost certainly > with Rove, his closest adviser. > > And we aren't talking about Gore suffering > politically from this guilt-by-association; > we're talking about discrediting global warming > on the basis of a non sequitur squared. > > > I prefer the following: Respondeat superior: a leader takes > > responsibility for the actions of those below him. > > These recruiters, as it happens, were acting > entirely on their own; they weren't part of the > Gore campaign or the Democratic Party apparatus.
If that were the case, I'd agree. Where did you get the documentation of that? > > Should Jodie Foster take responsibility for the > actions of John Hinckley? (Extreme example, but > it's the same principle.) > To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
