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: Greenpeace who wrote (17165)	7/21/1998 1:50:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

>>Clinton really does care, while Reagan and he republicans gave us the shaft><< LOL, Greenpeace, getting the shaft from Clinton will be his legacy....I think everyone understands your point of view, get up off your knees, open your eyes. bp

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17165)	7/21/1998 2:21:00 PM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 20981

Greenpeace, You really are pathetic. Also, you are a socialist, and from this philosophic ilk come NAZIs, communism and people such as Hillary and Bill Clinton. Do you like totalitarianism? This is what develops from your kind of ideology. The fact that NAZIs came from socialism has already been discussed on this board. (Would you like for me to dig up and repost some documentation on this idea?) You are wrong if you think otherwise. Get used to the idea that you are a socialist unless you wake-up and change your political philosophy. Btw, Neal Boortz was a liberal democrat until he read the book below: Lost Rights : The Destruction of American Liberty by James Bovard Paperback Reprint edition (September 1995) St. Martin's Press; ISBN: 0312123337 ; Dimensions (in inches): 1.10 x 9.23 x 6.15 Amazon.com Sales Rank: 2,317 Avg. Customer Review: ; Number of Reviews: 5 Customers who bought this book also bought: Shakedown : How the Government Screws You from A to Z; James Bovard The Commencement Speech You Need to Hear; Neal Boortz The Law; Frederic Bastiat, Dean Russell (Translator) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reviews Synopsis A scathing examination of the current state of American society and a expose of how the government is seizing property, suppressing free speech, and subjugating the citizenry. An entertaining and outrageous analysis of America's eroding rights from the author of The Fair Trade Fraud. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title. Synopsis Journalist Bovard presents an entertaining and outrageous expose of the misuse of government control. He maintains that the only way many government agencies can measure their "public service" is by the number of citizens they harass, hinder, restrain or jail. Lost Rights provides an analysis of the bloated excess of government and the plight of contemporary Americans. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Customer Comments Average Customer Review: Number of Reviews: 5 Brant Williams (TWARWB@AOL.COM from Kingston, Tennessee, USA, 06/21/98 A Text On Current and Increasing Government Tyranny. Several years ago, my many friends from Norway, Sweden and Denmark often laughed when I used the word 'freedom' to describe life in the USA. I could not understand why they considered this country so repressive. After reading 'Lost Rights', I understand. My European friends could see our government for what it was and now Mr. Bovard has exposed the truth for the rest of us. Upon concluding Mr. Bovard's fast paced work, one must ask, "has the great sacrifce of life by the men and women who died to create and later to protect our Constitution been in vain?" Unfortunately, if the trends outlined in this well researched and extensively annotated volume are not soon reversed the answer will most certainly be a sad 'yes'. It should be hard for anyone to read this book without mourning our Nation and wondering how much more abuse of the Constitution we will allow before taking steps to reclaim our "lost rights". rogue1@mailexcite.com from Webster Groves,Missouri, 06/13/98 essential reading this is a great book full of vital facts. upon reading this book, i realized that many of my worst fears are(and have been for quite some time) coming true. mikewill45@hotmail.com from West Virginia, USA, 03/01/98 We went to war with the British over much less!!! This book proves it. The government is no longer "for" the people. They have become an end in themselves wishing to usurp total and complete control over us all. This book proves they have no concern for your rights, only their own desires. Though Bovard may not have meant it this way I see this book as a call to arms for all true patriotic Americans. It's time the politicians began tasting some of the fear and oppression they have been handing out for so long. If you can read this book and not feel some of the same you must care little or nothing for your liberty. pierre22@li-fish.net from Rocky Point, New York, 01/06/98 Highlights the abuses of the everyday American. Through the descriptions of everyday occurrences,shows how government institutions, policies and processes can harass the typical citizen into submission. This is a book that should be read by all concerned with our current political climate. troy-bowman@worldnet.att.net from Gainesville, FL, 09/28/97 One of the most important books you will ever read Lost Rights sets the record straight on almost every issue making headlines today and exposes how often the government has lied in issues ranging from gun control, the war on drugs, and government officials using their power in office to usurp power from ordinary citizens and transfer it to themselves. Lost Rights is backed hundreds and hundreds of references leaving no doubt of the validity of some of the shocking revelations revealed in the book. This book should be required reading for everyone who cares about their rights and freedoms. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Look for similar books by subject: Browse other Nonfiction titles. Civil rights United States Liberty Politics - Current Events Political Science U.S. Government i.e., each book must be in subject 1 AND subject 2 AND ... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have read this book, and I want to review it. I am the Author and I want to comment on my book. I am the Publisher and I want to comment on this book.

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17165)	7/21/1998 2:38:00 PM
From: Catfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Greenpeace, we already know your category!!!! NEALZ NUZE The Neal Boortz Show -- News Talk 750 WSB -- Atlanta While I am on the air from 8:30 to Noon (EDT) you can send me e-mail at wsboortz@yahoo.com! Tuesday, July 21, 1998. IT'S THE 33 PERCENT I'M WORRIED ABOUT A recent Washington Post-ABC News Poll asked the question "Is President Clinton honest and trustworthy?" The results were disappointing. Sixty percent said that Clinton was not honest and trustworthy while 33 percent said that he was. So .. why am I disappointed? Easy. If no more than 60 percent of the people in this country realize that Clinton is distressingly dishonest, and if one third of the people actually think that he is trustworthy, we are in deep trouble. The evidence is so clear that there could barely be 5 percent of the population that doesn't recognize Clinton's dishonesty. We always have to allow for at least a 5 percent idiot quotient. I have to believe that the 33 percent that said that Clinton was honest and trustworthy are actually people who stand to benefit from Clinton's big government policies, and who are willing to tolerate dishonesty to get what they want from the government. boortz.com

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17165)	7/21/1998 3:01:00 PM
From: Bill	Respond to of 20981

Greenpeace, you really are out there. Do you have a mind?

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17165)	7/21/1998 3:10:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 20981

You have revealed yourself as nothing but a very sick cliche. The bad joke that keeps running and running and running and ..... I'm sure we all hope that you get well and you eventually get over your devil worship. You have no point of view, just a stringing together of debased, extremist drivel that is held together by your hatred of all that is good and great. I first thought you were just what political historians have termed "useful idiots", the mindless folk who supported the totalitarians as part of their psychosis. But your motives are far less pure and far more disturbed. Now we all know you are a truly evil maniac. Thanks for that revelation.

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17165)	7/21/1998 3:31:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

GP: Reagan slept through eight years? There's a nice factual non-judgmental statement. As for the S&L bandits, the Congress which passed the legislation was none other than the Democratic Congress which had an iron grip on the country since shortly after WWII. The legislators who interfered with the regulators (I know because I worked for the regulators) were overwhelmingly Democrats, including Speaker Wright who personally intervened in several cases I worked on. Using the Clinton standard, what was Ed Meese convicted of? When was it proven Bush had an affair? You are very naive if you think the Clintons care about anything other than their own aggrandizement. It is no wonder this national disgrace got elected. There are obviously a lot of gullible people like yourself who actually believe the media drivel and Democrat spinmeisters despite logic and reason. JLA

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17165)	7/21/1998 3:33:00 PM
From: Catfish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

PERJURY NATION Arianna Huffington 7/21/98 The dirty little secret of our justice system is that perjury has become epidemic, yet only 1 percent of all criminal prosecutions are perjury cases. Other than tax evasion, perjury is, in fact, the least prosecuted crime in the country. The main excuse given is that prosecuting perjury on a consistent basis would overwhelm the courts. But the rule of law will not long survive if the perjury epidemic continues unchecked. Which is why it is so critical that the nation's two highest-profile alleged perjury cases -- those of O.J. Simpson and Bill Clinton -- are pursued to their respective ends. Last week Simpson's former sister-in-law Denise Brown asked a Los Angeles County grand jury to investigate whether Simpson committed perjury during his civil trial when he denied under oath ever beating his wife. Gloria Allred, Brown's attorney, said, ''It is extremely important to many victims of domestic violence that this matter not be forgotten or ignored.'' It is also extremely important for the rest of us that perjury not only be punished but also be seen to be punished. In spite of the photographs of a bruised and battered Nicole Brown Simpson, the vivid details in her diaries and the phone calls to 911, Simpson denied under oath ever striking his wife. That he has not since been charged with perjury sends a terrible signal to all Americans who know about it and who are themselves tempted to lie under oath. In any federal civil or criminal proceeding, perjury is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Yet prosecutors I have talked to have all admitted that neither their offices nor the police have time to deal with perjury cases. This is why it is all the more urgent to procure some high-profile convictions and shatter the dangerous assumption that perjury is no big deal. As Voltaire dryly remarked, ''It is good to kill an admiral from time to time, to encourage the others.'' The devastating reality is that it is hard to imagine anything more destructive to the truth-seeking function of the justice system than turning a blind eye to perjury. As Todd gaziano, former legal advisor in the justice department, put it, ''If prosecutors, judges, and jurists cannot consistently rely on the penalty of perjury to make witnesses testify truthfully, both the civil and criminal justice systems will rot at the core.'' Of course, the most divisive perjury case our nation is grappling with involves President Clinton. The conventional wisdom was succinctly summed up by U.S. News Senior Editor Matt Miller: ''Perjury about adultery,'' he said, ''should not be a crime.'' But this is to confuse the shifting sands of public ethics with what should be the bedrock of the rule of law: the centuries-long prohibition against lying under oath. Perjury was once an offense punishable by death under common law. And another great deterrent against the temptation to lie under oath was the fear of committing the mortal sin of bearing false witness in the name of God and suffering eternal damnation. Now that for millions of Americans bearing false witness is no longer a fearful prospect spiritually, ''the only real bite behind an oath,'' as Michael Paulsen put it in the University of Chicago Law Review, ''is the specter of a perjury prosecution.'' The decades-old modern federal perjury statute makes absolutely no differentiation among various kinds of material lies -- whether about sex, power or money. And in 1994 the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals categorically rejected ''any suggestion, implicit or otherwise, that perjury is somehow less serious when made in a civil proceeding'' -- as were both Simpson's and Clinton's alleged perjuries. In the president's case, if there is a new but deep-seated national consensus that perjury about sex is not perjury, then let's change the law. We would be better off amending the statute than emasculating it by drawing distinctions that reflect social attitudes and public moods but contradict the laws of the land. In Simpson's case, by brushing under the rug the overwhelming evidence that points to perjury, we are conspicuously turning the perjury laws into a toothless symbol of a decaying justice system. Nothing would more dramatically stem the rising tide of perjury and the growing tolerance for it than prosecutions in the two cases that -- definitely for worse -- have consumed so much of our national energy and attention. (Arianna Huffington's Web site is at ariannaonline.com) (c) 1998, Arianna Huffington. Distributed by the Los Angeles Times Syndicate freerepublic.com

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17165)	7/21/1998 5:20:00 PM
From: Andy Thomas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

>> Because I support...arts, and education, << You me government grants for artists? What kind of moral artist would want the government as a patron? Why should those without children or those who send their children to private schools, be forced to subsidize those with children in public schools? Here the parents with children in public schools are irresponsible. Why is it that your type always wants to encourage irresponsible behavior? I suppose when your type talks about education, you're more interested in getting across to students - what to think instead of how to think. FWIW Andy

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17165)	7/21/1998 10:58:00 PM
From: Catfish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

Intimidation Getting Clintons Nowhere Spokane.net July 17, 1998 D.F.Oliveria Smitten Clinton fans believe Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr is out of control, a Torquemada hellbent on destroying their lovable lug. Nothing could be further from the truth. Starr and his maligned prosecutors are the sheriff's posse chasing celluloid scofflaws Butch and Sundance. Slick Willie and Hillary haven't been able to shake Starr and his straight shooters no matter how many denials they make, appeals they file or stone walls they erect. Nor can Billary intimidate Sheriff Starr, a tactic that has proved so effective in dealing with bimbo eruptions, former pals and Arkansas troopers. Our predator-in-chief finally has met his match. Clinton knows he'll lose his public relations edge when Starr finally presents his case. At this point, he can only try to draw the investigation out beyond the November elections and hope the Democrats regain control of the House -- or that Americans won't be in the mood to impeach a lame duck president. Contrary to White House spin, Starr's ongoing investigation isn't about sex and lies. In its latest incarnation, it's about perjury and obstruction of justice -- the centerpiece of Nixon's Watergate scandal. Conveniently, Clintonistas forget that Attorney General Janet Reno, a Clinton appointee, has expanded Starr's mandate three times since 1994, when he began investigating the Clintons' shady Whitewater dealings. It now covers Filegate, Travelgate and Monicagate. And Republicans are lobbying for it to include Asiagate I (the donors) and Asiagate II (the rockets). The time and money spent on the investigation is no big deal. Lawrence Walsh's investigation of the Iran-Contra affair lasted eight years; a probe launched in 1990 into House and Urban Development scandals is still going on. As for cost, $40 million and counting, Clinton squandered that much by taking 1,000 people on his recent trip to China. For years, Democrats used the special prosecutor law to rein-in Republican presidents. Now, the tables have turned. Someday, Congress will muster the courage to do away with the flawed law and resume responsibility for oversight of the executive branch. Until then, this country is fortunate to have someone as honorable, tenacious and courageous as Starr pursuing one of the most corrupt presidents in U.S. history. freerepublic.com