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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SirRealist who wrote (776)	3/2/2002 8:56:27 AM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Yikes, that was a wonderful post, very generous in scope. And of course I agree with most of your points, which makes it easier to praise. -g Would you be willing to go into more detail as to how you feel Clinton's attempt to shore up the health care system got botched up? The job got botched; I consider that one of the major failures of his Presidency. And I lay this out here, to display my motives and bias, which are not about defending Clinton. I recognized him prior to his presidency only as an excellent campaigner with a capacity to innovate. I do not assign high hopes to many Presidential choices; generally there'll be one or two issues of national concern that I hope a candidate can address successfully. Also, FWIW (and as you know) the issues faced by the majority of homeless GI's are predominantly mental health issues (PTSD-based), some of which morph into physical health issues. I'm still waiting for a shaping up of our mental health care system....

To: SirRealist who wrote (776)	3/4/2002 2:49:25 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

1) People go to jail, Presidents don't. The suggestion that we define new precedents of consistency in justice between the well-heeled and well-connected sounds good, but I haven't seen pigs fly yet. Practically you are right but since practically the issue is already decided this is no more of a "what should have happened" debate then a "what whill happen", or "what did". In any case I am not actually arguing that Clinton should have gone to jail, I am meerly using the examples to show how perjury even when it is about sex is treated as a serious issue. If others can go to jail for it, he could have lost his job over it. I'm not even necessarily saying that its so bad that he didn't lose his job, just that the impeachment was not rediculous. 3) The woman accepting money from men for sex was engaging in a criminal act before the false statement or perjury that she gave. Yes but that is a seperate charge. Also I belive that the punsihment for perjury in this case was a lot worse then the punishment for prostitution. Your point 5 I agree with. 2 out of the 6 where similar to Clinton's situation. Of course 2 (or even 6) isn't very many examples. As with the second example in #5, he also could have been motivated to deny having sex with Ms. Lewinsky so that a 'pattern of behavior' could be denied while he defended himself against Jones' civil lawsuit. He could also have been motivated to conceal having an affair from his wife, his daughter, and other loved ones. Even if he had a pattern of behavior that his wife was aware of, this could be so. As well, his motivation could have been pure politics if he was trying to conceal the affair from the public solely to prevent political damage to his career. I'm not sure it really matters what his motivation was. The point is it was a lie under oath and it did server to hide a "pattern of behavior". I think that perhaps the law allows prosecutors to go overboard on these patterns in sexual harrasment cases but Bill Clinton was a big supporter of that idea that such paterns of behavior were relevant, and I believe he signed the very law that enabled prosecuotors to go after such patterns in court. As far as the health care "reform". I agree that it is the greatest political failure of his presidency, but I don't consider that political failure to be a practical one as I think a political sucess to push his plans in this area would be a practical failure. but Gingrich was leading the recklessness and viciousness of the extreme fringe to center stage. We disagree about this but thats a whole seperate topic. As well, there was a distinct smell of chauvinist pork cooking in the assault directed at Mrs. Clinton because she didn't project the same passivity as many First Ladies have done, though she was hardly at the extreme edges of frontline feminism. Since she wasn't passive but rather politically active she opened herself up to criticism from people who disagree with her. It's not chauvinist, in fact in a way it would have been chauvinist to "protect" her from the harshness of the debate. I certainly am no fan of hers, but it has nothing to dow with her being a woman, if she had been president and Bill did what she did I would have reacted similarly. I agree with you about remarks about Chelsea, but I don't see the relevance to the impeachment issue. Nor do I think unfair mean spirited attacks where only against the Clintons or only from conservatives. Conservatives get a big dose of criticism as well. The Clintons and the people working for the Clintons where masters of nasty put downs. As far as I know they did have the decency to leave children out of it but every new conservative idea presented by the Republicans that the Clintons disliked was met with viscious lies and implied or directly stated comments about how Repulbicans would starve children and probably wanted to strangle old people. Charges like these continue now, years later, despite the fact that it ranks as one of the most investigated deaths in history, complete with redundant findings of no wrongdoing. I think this is because it was a sloppy investigation with some unresolved question. I don't think those questions mean that he was murdered or anything like that but they leave small openings for those who do think this way. Look at all of the odd conspiracy theories that have spun off of the Kennedy assassination. The dismissal of folks in the Travel Office got grandstanded into kinship with Nixon's Watergate. That was akin to suggesting the dismissal of a chauffeur is as important a national matter as the break-in and bugging of political opponents in an attempt to hijack an election. It might not have been quite as big as Watergate, but it was legitimately a big story. It was a lot more then "the dismissal of a chauffeur". A number of people where dismissed, and they where not simply fired their reputations where attacked with viscious lies. They railroaded Billy Dale who accumulated over a half of a million dollars in legal bills defending himself. The employees where dismissed without warning and charged falsely with embezzlement. All so that they would be able to replace these people with their cronies from Arkansas. Tim