SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: PiMac who wrote (12847)6/23/1999 5:36:00 AM
From: Earl Risch  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 13994
 
...and black is white.



To: PiMac who wrote (12847)6/23/1999 8:24:00 AM
From: jlallen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 13994
 
"Clinton merely has character." Unfortunately, its not the type of character which is appropriate for polite society and especially not proper for the WH. JLA



To: PiMac who wrote (12847)6/23/1999 8:50:00 AM
From: Bill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 13994
 
You are as dense as anyone who has graced this forum. Your type is what makes this thread sport.

Keep it up.



To: PiMac who wrote (12847)6/23/1999 9:54:00 AM
From: Catfish  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 13994
 
THE FEDERALIST® BRIEF
The Internet's Conservative Journal of Record
federalist.com

Date: 22 June 1999
Federalist #99-25.brf

______--------********O********--------______
THIS WEEK'S FEATURE/SPONSOR

NATIONAL CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH

Families, communities and citizens should be at the center of American
society, not the government. Reaching this goal requires rolling back
the excesses of a half century of failed government programs, slashing
an imposing federal bureaucracy and restoring the personal liberties
of every American. The National Center for Public Policy Research is a
communications and research foundation dedicated to providing free
market solutions to today's public policy problems.

Visit nationalcenter.org


______--------********O********--------______
INSIGHT

"No one denies that weighty problems confront a large segment of the
black population. But those problems have little to do with
discrimination. There is no evidence that colleges are turning away
black students with 1200 on the SAT, but there's a plenty of evidence
that blacks are not achieving high SAT scores. There's no evidence
that businesses don't locate in black neighborhoods because white
owners and investors don't like dollars coming out of black hands.
There's a plenty of evidence that black criminals make economic
activity in black communities unattractive. There's no evidence that
discrimination accounts for today's unprecedented, devastating
illegitimacy, family breakdown and dependency rates. There's a plenty
of evidence that irresponsible personal choices do. The major problems
that stand in the way of broader advancement will be solved only when
blacks finally recognize that our destinies lie in our hands and only
we can solve what are essentially black problems -- not Washington,
politicians and the intellectual elite." --Walter E. Williams

______--------********O********--------______
FAMILY IN BRIEF

Fatherhood -- 1999

Father's Day is not only a day to express our gratitude for all our
fathers have done for us, but also a day to reflect on the importance
of fathers to society as a whole.

Although a January 1999 poll found that 72 percent of Americans
believe that fatherlessness is the most significant family or social
problem facing America, this is apparently a problem that many don't
care enough about to solve.

* Forty percent of the children of divorced parents haven't seen
their dads in the past year.

* Thirty-six percent of children, approximately 24.7 million,
don't live with their biological father. In 1960, just nine percent
of children lived with one parent.

* The number of live births to unmarried women increased from
224,300 in 1960 to 1,248,000 in 1995, while the number of children
living with never-married mothers grew from 221,000 in 1960 to
5,862,000 in 1995.

* A just-released National Fatherhood Initiative analysis found
that of the 102 prime-time network TV shows in late 1998, only fifteen
featured a father as a central character. Of these, the majority
portrayed the father as uninvolved, incompetent or both.

But for the kids who have them, a good dad makes a big difference.

Consider:

* Children with fathers are twice as likely to stay in school.

* Boys with dad and mom at home are half as likely to be
incarcerated, regardless of their parents' income or educational
level. According to a Men Against Domestic Violence survey, 85
percent of youths in prison come from fatherless homes.

* Girls 15-19 raised in homes with fathers are significantly
less likely to engage in premarital sex, and 76 percent of teenage
girls surveyed said their fathers are very or somewhat influential
over their decisions regarding sex.

* Girls raised in single-mother homes are more likely to give
birth while single and are more likely to divorce and remarry.
Studies have shown that girls whose fathers depart before their fifth
birthday are especially likely to have permissive sexual attitudes and
to seek approval from others.

* Paternal praise is associated with better behavior and
achievement in school, while father absence increases vulnerability
and aggressiveness in young children, particularly boys.

* Young children living without dads married to their moms are
ten times as likely to be in poverty.

* Fatherless children are "at a dramatically greater risk" of
drug and alcohol abuse, says the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.

* Children living in households with fathers are less likely to
suffer from emotional disorders and depression.

* When dads don't live with their kids, the children are 4.3
times more likely to smoke cigarettes during their teenage years.

* A white teenage girl with an advantaged background is five
times more likely to be a teen mom if she grows up in a household
headed by a single mom instead of with her biological dad and mom.

* Children with involved dads are less susceptible to peer
pressure, are more competent, more self-protective, more self-reliant
and more ambitious.

These benefits to kids come at a cost for dads, but many are willing
to make even greater sacrifices. Thirty percent of fathers said they
have turned down a promotion or transfer because it would harm the
amount of time they would have available for their families. In a 1991
survey, 75 percent of men said they would trade rapid career
advancement for a chance to have more time with their families.

It doesn't take a lot of modern sociological data for people to
realize that involved dads make an irreplaceable contribution to the
lives of their kids.

(From The National Center for Public Policy Research)

______--------********O********--------______
POLICY PAGES & POINTS OF INTEREST
(NOTE: For our subscribers with WWW access, if the URL line breaks,
please select, copy and paste the entire link address into your
browser's target address field.)

Fatherhood Resources....

National Center for Fathering
fathers.com

The Institute for Responsible Fatherhood & Family Revitalization
responsiblefatherhood.org

Center for Successful Fathering
fathering.org

National Fatherhood Initiative
fatherhood.org

Childhood Trends
childtrends.org

______--------********O********--------______
THE LAST WORD

This Week's Clintoon:
cartoonery.com

And a final note: Congratulations! Today, June 22, 1999, is "Cost of
Government Day" when median income Americans have accumulated enough
earned income to pay their individual taxes (Tax Freedom Day
celebrated in May) plus those hidden taxes, the cost of bureaucratic
regulations. Americans for Tax Reform research indicates, "The U.S.
General Accounting Office has reported that between April 1, 1996 and
March 31, 1999, the federal government issued more than 12,925 new
regulatory rules. Of these, 188 were listed as 'major rules'. A major
rule is defined as a new regulation estimated to cost Americans more
than $100 million each year." You know, AL Gore really has been
"reinventing government"!




To: PiMac who wrote (12847)6/23/1999 10:07:00 AM
From: Catfish  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 13994
 
Excerpts from NEALZ NUZE
Wednesday, June 23, 1999

IT'S AMAZING HOW WELL THIS SCAM WORKED

I'm talking about the "government shutdown" scam.

There's a story in today's Washington Post about George W. Bush. (I call him "Dubya" here.) The story asks the question of whether or not Dubya can get the support of congressional Republicans without taking on all of their baggage. What baggage? Well, according to the Post, that baggage would be the " ... legacy of impeachment, former Speaker Newt Gingrich and a government shutdown."

Just why is the impeachment Republican baggage? Are the Republicans the ones who lied under oath and obstructed justice?

And what's this about the government shutdown? Do you folks remember how this whole think came down? No? Well, here's how it worked. The Republicans passed an appropriations bill and sent it to the White House. Clinton refused to sign it. The Republicans said, "Fine. While we work this out we'll pass a Continuing Resolution to keep funding these areas of government until we straighten out our differences." Clinton said he would veto that too. So --- due entirely to Clinton's veto, some government agencies had to shut down non-essential agencies.

Clinton then went into action. He started blaming the Republicans for the shutdown. The press bit and went along with Clinton's spin. Clinton's staff then met with some government employee union leaders. They were told to get their people out there in front of the cameras complaining about how they couldn't afford Christmas for their children because of the Republicans shutting down the government. The press bit on this too. Finally, the American people bought the big lie in its entirety. The shutdown became the Republican's fault.

Amazing, isn't it? How can you fight a socialist, dishonest President when the press acts as his public relations arm?

MORE ON BILL PRESS OF CROSSFIRE

I think I've changed my mind a bit on Bill Press – the liberal commentator on CNN's Crossfire.

Yes, I still think he's about as intellectually lame as you can get. He could quite possibly lose in intellectual combat with an average seventh grader.

Yesterday I expressed a longing for the days of Michael Kinsley. At least he presented his leftist ideas in a comprehensible manner. I wish to retract, though, my suggestion that the producers of Crossfire look for a better spokesman for the left. The hallmark of liberalism is it's inability to recognize the rights of individuals and the stark lack of logical thought processes. I can think of no liberal, save for Tom Teepen (who would just not work on television) who embodies these liberal traits more than Bill Press. All conservatives and libertarians should pray that Press remain just where he is --- right there on CNN every single night embarrassing the left.

I took a look at the transcript for Tuesday night's Crossfire and found a few Press quotes that you might enjoy. The subject was all of those evil, nasty millionaires and billionaires out there. Press want's something done. Read on a get a bit of a chuckle. Press quotes in italics. My smart-ass remarks follow:

"Have we reached the point where some people are making too much money? Should they be required to give more to charity? Or even to taxes? "

Right, Bill. And just who is it that is going to determine just when a person is making too much money? The government? What sort of an agency are we going to set up to make that determination? What will we call it? And when this agency determines just how much is too much, who is going to determine what charity will get the overage? Is this your idea of freedom?

" ... as you well know, the number of poor in this country remains unchanged, still about 36 and one-half million poor people in this country. Isn't there something wrong with this picture?"

Who says there are 36 and one-half poor people in this country? The government? Well, under government poverty standards you could live in a one million dollar house, have a garage full of $100,000 cars and $15 million in a checking account and still be officially defined by the government as "living in poverty." Did you know that, Mr. Press?

"Here are these guys walking around with more money than they can possibly spend. They'd have to stay up all day and night trying to figure out how to spend that much money. Why aren't they giving more? And if they're not, maybe they should be required to give more?"

This is why you'll never be, as you say it, "obscenely rich," Press. You have this idiotic idea that rich people need or want to spend all of the money they have. This "more money than they can possibly spend" nonsense comes right out of Marx's "to each according to their needs" doctrine. This may come as a shock to you, Bill, but wealthy people don't feel the need to spend every penny they earn. There's something out there called "investing." They invest in real estate projects. They buy stocks and bonds. They buy or begin new businesses. All of these activities create jobs and drive our economy. Gawd, what an idiot you are.

" ... if people are disproportionately rich, shouldn't they .... be asked to give disproportionately more to the government that gives us this opportunity to get rich and protects their property, by the way?"

Damn, Bill. You just don't know when to quit, do you? Again, just how do you determine when a person has earned "disproportionately more" than someone else? Where in our laws does it set up a standard of proportions on what people may earn? Oh, and by the way. The wealthy already pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. The top one percent of income earners – earning about $200,000 per year and up – earn about 16 percent of the total income, yet they pay 33 percent of the income taxes. If you were as interested in facts as you are in emotional argumentation you would have already known this. Oh, and what's this crap about "the government that gives us this opportunity to get rich"? Do you mean to say that our freedoms are a gift from government? Golly! And all this time I had this outdated idea that our rights to life, liberty and freedom were actually the rights that we created government to protect! Imagine my surprise after you informed me that these rights actually flow to me from government! I guess whatever the government gives, it can also take away, right?

Keep Bill Press right where he is, CNN. The right needs him there.http://www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm