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.

Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jack Clarke who wrote (13233)	4/9/1998 5:16:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

But the two party system is pretty entrenched, so it will be very difficult. Hope so. Just try living in a country with 25 political parties that are actually represented in the legislature. And another 300 or so hoping to get there. REALLY doesn't work. At all. But speaking of corruption now and in the 19th century, I don't know how you measure corruption. Is it in dollars? Numbers of people screwed (literally and figuratively in the current example)? I dunno either. But those guys were far, far more brazen, and my guess is that a great many more people were affected personally. My own great-grandfather, involved in machine politics in Philadelphia, either committed suicide or was murdered. Went sailing off the roof of the Bellevue-Stratford one summer's evening. I've always meant to try to find out more about it--could be fun--but never got round to it...

To: Jack Clarke who wrote (13233)	4/9/1998 6:46:00 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Jack, I agree that Clinton and his bunch has been a real piece of work. I was calling for tall trees, short ropes and spooky horses back in '92. What worries me is the interest in a third party. It soon will be full of lawyers and pandering to special interest groups the same as the first two. Probably make things worse. We need to support the Republicans and get them back on track. I say support because we, the American people, elected a Republican Congress and instantly turned to back Slick on the budget deal. I say we because I'm an American, really I was on Newt's side.

To: Jack Clarke who wrote (13233)	4/10/1998 11:56:00 AM
From: BlueCrab	Respond to of 20981

Jack -- I agree with a great deal of your post. I think the measure of corruption in the late 19th century (and long into the 20th in some quarters - the Harding administration leaps to mind) that Janice was looking for was "endemic" - top to bottom and side to side, there was corruption everywhere, an accepted (if with resignation) part of the sociopolitical landscape. It was due in part to the tremendous influx of immigrants, who were unsure of their rights and familiar with the patois of corrupt officialdom, and in part due to the lack of suitable opportunities for bright, enterprising and capable young men of the lower classes to aspire to higher status. They populated the lower rungs of the rackets, both in "official" governments and in "unofficial" governments, such as organized crime, climbing as high as they could. But the primary source of corruption was the fact that huge amounts of capital, resources and power - the fruits of a young, rapidly expanding economy - were funneled into the hands of a very small group of extraordinarily wealthy people, who wrote their own rules by buying legislators, bureaucrats and judges at every level. <<But I have a deep feeling that the Clinton administration wins the all time corruption prize.>> They're not even in the running with the recent past, much less the Hardings, Grants et al. <<Also I dislike him for his phoniness>> Uh, Jack, how many sincere politicians do you know?<vbg> Jeff