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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Earl Risch who wrote (1555)	9/5/1998 8:03:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

Now that this is out, will the Media report on the child that Clinton reportedly had with the black whore? I think the Clintonistas will rue the day. Does anyone still have the link concerning Slick's black child? We need to send it to Howard Kurtz. Actually, now it is a given that Slick's progeny will be exposed. Burton Fathered Child in Extramarital Affair By Edward Walsh Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, September 5, 1998; Page A01 House Government Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman Dan Burton (R-Ind.), one of President Clinton's most persistent and combative critics, acknowledged yesterday that he is the father of a child who was born out of wedlock. In a written statement released to the Indianapolis Star and News, Burton said he was making the disclosure to end harassment of the child's mother and others by news organizations. He also sought to link interest in his private life by news organizations to his role in investigating 1996 campaign fund-raising abuses by Clinton's reelection committee and the Democratic National Committee. "There was a relationship many years ago from which a child was born," Burton said in the statement. "I am the father. With my wife's knowledge, I have fulfilled my responsibilities as the father." "I'm not going to talk any more about my personal life," the Indiana Republican added. "I've hurt some people that I love very much. Enough is enough." Burton provided no details about the woman or the child. But in its editions today, the Star and News reported that Burton had the extramarital relationship with the woman and fathered the child in the early 1980s, when he was a member of the Indiana Senate and the woman worked for a state agency. The newspaper said the woman, who is married, and her teenage son live in central Indiana but did not disclose their names or exact location. Burton's admission ended days of intense speculation over possible embarrassing news stories dealing with his private life. Earlier this week, the Indianapolis paper reported that Burton had been warning people in his district, which includes parts of Indianapolis and its northern suburbs, that Vanity Fair magazine was about to publish a "scandal story" about his personal life. The disclosure comes as Burton and his House colleagues await a report from independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr on Clinton's admitted sexual relationship with former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky. Some Republicans have warned that the White House planned a "scorched earth" defense, delving into the private lives of congressional Republicans as a way to shield Clinton from the consequences of the Lewinsky scandal. The White House has denied any such intention and specifically denied that it played any role in the investigations of Burton's private life by news organizations. Vic Caleca, deputy managing editor of the Indianapolis Star and News, said Burton acknowledged the illegitimate son in an interview yesterday morning after realizing that the paper had enough evidence to publish today's story. Asked why the story was newsworthy, Caleca said: "Congressman Burton has consistently gotten high marks from the Christian Coalition. He certainly has put himself to the fore in the Clinton investigation. It's a sad fact of the '90s that for someone who's spoken out and positioned himself on family values kinds of issues, we think it's relevant. It's a character issue." Caleca said that the woman and the boy had "rebuffed" the paper in several interview attempts and that the Star and News will not name them. "What put it over the top was that he had actually fathered a child," he said. Burton is one of the House's most conservative Republicans and, as chairman of the House committee that has been investigating campaign finance abuses, one of Clinton's most dogged pursuers. Last April, he called the president "a scumbag" and said that was why he was "out to get" Clinton. Burton began his statement acknowledging his out-of-wedlock child by referring to his role in the campaign fund-raising investigation, which he said had brought him "under attack from people inside and outside the Clinton administration. I was prepared for this, and I made a promise to the American people that I would never allow these attacks to deter my efforts to uncover the truth." Without mentioning Clinton, Burton also sought to contrast his admission with allegations that have been made against the president in the Lewinsky investigation. "I have never perjured myself," he said. "I have never committed obstruction of justice. I have been as straight as an arrow in my public duty. But this is private." Burton said that his wife, Barbara, was aware of the child and that he had apologized to her and their family. Burton told the Indianapolis Star and News that he had paid child support to the mother of his child over the years. "I have tried to be as straight as I could be with my family on all this," Burton told the newspaper. "I tried to keep it between my family and this lady's family." According to the Star and News, Burton has been in Indiana the last two days discussing the situation with the woman, their child, his family and closest friends. "What bothers me the most is not about me," Burton told the newspaper. "I know this is hard for someone to believe about a politician, but I have watched everybody's hearts being ripped out today. I just don't want anybody to be hurt any more than they are going to be hurt. I made a mistake." Staff writer Howard Kurtz contributed to this report. washingtonpost.com

To: Earl Risch who wrote (1555)	9/5/1998 1:04:00 PM
From: Jim Roof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

I think that at the heart of the matter both libertarians and traditional conservatives see the same problems but definitely differ in the solutions as well as the very basis of the problem. <<I believe that if you protect individual rights, there is no need for "moral policing">> The problem here is in establishing what constitutes an infringement on another's rights. Let's say that under libertarianism there are no laws regarding sexual conduct between consenting adults and likewise there are no incentives given for 'traditional' sexual behavior. In 20 years we may be looking at an even greater increase in teen pregnancies and 'fatherless' children. Who pays for this? A strict libertarian might say 'the people who had the babies' but the practical working out of the matter is not so clear cut. A conservative approach would be to discourage indiscriminant sex and at the same time reward the family via tax credits for the children they have. This may be interpreted as an intrusion into private matters but regardless, the social outcome (should this method be successful) would be enjoyed by all in the form of lower taxes and fewer children growing up in horribly maladjusted homes. <<The legitimate duties of the federal government, as outlined by the constitution, are very limited and rightfully so. In a very broad sense, the intent IMO is to protect us, where necessary, from foreign powers, and from each other.>> Just curious. Should the government have a duty to protect us from ourselves? <<It appears to me that the "inherently weak bricks", or "lives in disarray" probably has some basis in your belief that man is inherently evil. I believe that if you protect individual rights, there is no need for "moral policing".>> I do believe that man is inherently evil. I can certainly speak for myself in this regard and history speaks pretty clearly for the rest of the world. Civilizations rise and then they fall. They fall almost always because they crumble under the weight of their own weaknesses. These weaknesses I would call evils. Should they fall to an outside force then one must question 'is the outside force acting for good or for evil?'. It is almost always evil in the form of selfish gain and material conquest. I believe that man behaves for one of two reasons and two reasons only (except for the autonomic nervous system and reflex actions). It is either the prospect of reward or the fear of punishment that guides our behaviors. Societies in which there is a belief in God behave according to how their 'god' will reward or punish. In many instances this has led to actions which are abhorent (Crusades, Jihad, etc.) but absent a spiritual direction then we look to government to handle the reward/punishment sytem or the peer group to praise/ridicule us. Once the peer group has accepted behaviors once thought wrong (which they will over time when spiritual certainties are removed) then we have only government. Over time the government will feel the pressure of the morally failed peer group to 'not be so hard' on certain behaviors. So, the slide continues until laws have been stripped of 'morally sensitive' content. That is a harbinger of the end of a culture. Some people have stated that open homosexuality is a sign of the end of a culture. I do not think that this means that this behavior is more prevalent at that time but I do think that the general acceptance of homosexuality as nothing more than an alternative to heterosexuality shows that the lines of distinction have been blurred and that we have ceased to have the ability to call any behavior as unnacceptable. To those who are now angered at my comment just ask yourself this question "At what point should pedophilia be considered acceptable and normal?". Now that I have angered you all the more ask yourself why you have such a distaste for the latter but no such opinion of the former? It used to be that just having sex before marriage was a deep shame. Now it is cool. God forbid a child should result from premarital sex (just a few decades ago it was a dark secret). Now we have about 40% of the nation's children born in this fashion. People are weak. Outside of a recognition that they are weak there can only be failure as a culture because the legal structure will be based upon a false and deadly premise - that we are basically good. Jim