Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Technology Stocks : JDS Uniphase (JDSU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pat mudge who wrote (14435)	11/29/2000 8:59:58 AM
From: Liatris Spicata	Respond to of 24042

pat- OT- I may respond more in due course. But your scholarly effort to go back to Teapot Dome betrays a certain desparateness on your part, as well as being irrelevant to what this discussion is (was?) about. I'm sure we're all fascinated by the history of Teapot Dome and Warren Harding, to say nothing of General Grant. Moreover, it is so relevant to the world we live in today. I'll be sure to expend a lot of energy researching it all. You are intentionally confusing the issue by broadening the scope of the discussion here- which in addition to being rather intellectually shabby is something I am think the thread does not need. I was discussing abuses of the electoral process- stuffing the absentee ballot box and the like, where as you seem to wish to broaden the matter to governmental abuse of power. I don't think this is the place for such a discussion, but I assure you neither party has anything approaching a monopoly on the abuse of government power- and in my mind that's an excellent reason to minimize the influence of govenment over society. However interesting the cases you cited may be to those seeking a Ph.D. in American History, they are irrelevant irrelevant to the question at hand. SI and other venues have vetted the present administration's thoroughgoing corruption, and I don't want to drag this thread down that path. (But dammit, Al Gore was not in the bathroom the whole time money was being "raised".) Suffice it is to say I believe a solid case can be made this the Clinton administration has had the most dishonest administration in recent US history, along with the most corrupt and politicized DOJ. I do wonder at the motives of someone whose polemical style is to take a discussion to new directions- I suspect you just want to avoid addressing abuses of the electoral process. How convenient for you. Your, and CNN's contention that Watergate was the worst political scandal in US history is a judgement made by The Hive. I'll say, "No Comment". But the same people who excoriated Nixon for lying about a third rate burglary (of which he almost certainly knew nothing about ahead of time, but went into an ill-conceived damage control) are most anxious to give Bill Clinton and his crew a free ride on governmental lying. Lying even at the highst level. Even when it involves the death of a woman standing with babe in arms at a cabin door or an unarmed 14 year old boy shot in the back while running back to that same cabin. Hell- your boys will even promote to the second highest position in the FBI the man to directed that little gem of an operation. Allow me to remind you, Patricia, nobody- most particularly no innocents- died as a result of Watergate. And the FBI's destroying of records about Ruby Ridge- and subsequent lying about- is a far worse cover-up than Nixon's boys ever engaged in. <<obstructed justice by firing special prosecutor Archibald Cox>> That's hoot, coming from a defender(?) of an AG who just couldn't ever seem to see a need for a special prosecutor, even when the FBI recommended one. Funny how Democrats in recent years have become decidedly cool toward the law that enables special proscutors. Notice your referral didn't mention the rationale for Cox's dismissal. Wonder why? Using the IRS for political purposes is a longstanding Democrat technique. In fact, Nixon's complaint, if I remember correctly, was that his administration was unable to use that "tool" the way his Democrat predecessors had. But the potential for and history of abuse there is enormous, no matter who is in power, and is an excellent argument for drastic overhaul of our system of taxation. And speaking of prison, you know very well that's probably exactly where you or I would be if we committed perjury the way Bill Clinton has done. Oh, yes, your man did manage to beat the rap, despite being guilty as hell (well OK, he cannot practice law in Arkansas any more. Zounds.). In sum, Patricia, you have utterly failed to even address my contention that that Democrat Party is far more involved with electoral irregularities than are Republicans. You just choose to change the subject. Larry P.S. Your reference to Nixon intervening with the ITT case in return for financial contribution was pure speculation on the part of Nixon haters. A post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument. Whether or not there was a scintilla of truth to it is lost in the sands of history. Given the facility with which you will impugn people's integrity, it surprises me not a bit that you would repeat it. P.P.S. When LBJ's goons bugged Barry Goldwater's haunts in 1964- and Goldwater mentioned it during the campaign- well the media world just didn't seem to thing that was something worth exploring. Quite and accomplished band of hypocrites.