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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (1906)	9/8/1998 8:48:00 PM
From: Who, me?	Respond to of 67261

You're out of step with the mainstream. Stay in the minority forever! Most people do care about moral values. You've fallen for the spinners screaming "right wing conspiracy", which does not exist. Most people are decent people...just that...and this religious hang up you have is nothing more than how misinformed you are. Look at what the #1 concern in the polls is: Message 5697306

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (1906)	9/8/1998 8:48:00 PM
From: Bill Grant	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Michelle, You are to be applauded for persistence, generally for courtesy, and perhaps loyalty, but must be questioned on judgment. When the facts are clear, you either have to fish or cut bait. I really think it is time for you to cut bait -- you know it in your heart and mind.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (1906)	9/8/1998 9:05:00 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Respond to of 67261

>> forced into defending Clinton as a sort of backlash against this moral police that the right wing has become. It's a two way street. What I find provocative is Clinton's support. I think to myself what fools, can't they see the real man? Why the devotion? Why not look to higher ideals? Clinton has to step aside because he screwed things up. It's that simple. It's a no brainer....we don't need lawyers or logic classes to figure it out. The best thing we can do is prove to ourselves and the world that we can keep our house in order. Two more years of malarky is too much. Just do what is right and let the chips fall where they may. Zeuspaul

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (1906)	9/8/1998 11:04:00 PM
From: Rick Slemmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Michelle: ... But what you people dont seem to understand is that I also dont approve of this right wing fringe element and so I am forced into defending Clinton as a sort of backlash against this moral police that the right wing has become. So let me see if I understand you correctly: because you feel that some elements of the so-called "right wing" constitute the equivalent of a Moral Police Force, you think your only recourse is to defend all of Bill Clinton's actions? If that's the case, are you therefore ideologically obligated to defend every pot-smoking, flag-burning, draft-dodging womanizer because they, too, are opposed to the "Moral Police?" Seems to me there is ample room for a middle ground. At this point, I can't see how anyone can possibly defend Clinton with all we know of his conduct now, unless such defense is simply blind loyalty along party lines. RS

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (1906)	9/8/1998 11:07:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 67261

>>as Gerald Ford correctly pointed out on hardball last night Gerald Ford is no authority on electability. Or much else for that matter - remember, he had that disgraceful alcoholic/drug addict wife and didn't know it for years. Babbling Betty they called her.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (1906)	9/9/1998 2:57:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 67261

and so I am forced into defending Clinton as a sort of backlash against this moral police that the right wing has become. Is this a reference to Starr, perhaps? Keep in mind that he is simply an officer of the law. He was provided evidence that strongly suggested that the President of the U.S. had comitted perjury (a felony). If he had simply sent Linda Tripp away and said "oh well, I know it was in a sexual harassment deposition, but it looks like any perjury was about consentual sex, so we'll just wink at this perjury". Starr can't legally do that, not at least about a felony. He is sworn to uphold the law. The law is the law, and it is the law for a reason. Judges need a reasonable expectation that defendents will tell the truth under oath, and if not, there must be penalties. If Clinton wished to risk getting caught comitting a felony, then he must be held accountable, as other citizens are. What else exactly are you referring to by saying "moral police"? Which law specifically are you referring to which punishes sexual immorality (besides the obviously the sex/violence crimes of rape, molestation etc where individuals are victimized)? Or by "moral police" are you referring not to where actual real laws are made and enforced, but when government officials encourage certain behaviour? Such as perhaps like the Dan Quayle remarks suggesting that single motherhood sans dad isn't the ideal situation for children? If this is your chief complaint, may I suggest that even so-called right wing conservative types also have a right to freedom of speech, and they certainly do have a right to hold whatever moral values they chose to. Certainly in America everyone is open to criticism, both on the left and the right, because we have freedom of speech. But do not confuse the idea that others may have a value system which may be different than others or others like you, with a "moral police". What really amazes me is that somehow the more liberal element in the US people seem to think quite often that someone whose views are more conservative than theirs somehow don't have any right to voice those views, but the more liberal (morally and whatever) does have some kind of corner on the market for the constitutional right to speech. It's quite amazing, and just a little hypocritical.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (1906)	9/9/1998 8:57:00 AM
From: j_b	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

<<I voted for the lesser of 2 evils>> Why not vote Libertarian? The only way to bring politics back where we feel it needs to be is to vote our consciences, even if we don't believe the candidate can win. Clinton won (among other reasons) because Perot drew votes away from Bush. Maybe if enough "lesser of 2 evils" people had voted Libertarian (or other 3rd party) the major parties would have paid more attention to our views. For that matter, with the 2 major parties in such disarray, the 3rd party candidate might have won. At one point, for example, Perot was absolutely in the race - even though we all knew he was a bit of an eccentric (to put it mildly). How would a REAL candidate have done?