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: Mo Chips who wrote (1925)	9/9/1998 9:21:00 AM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<Isn't the Replcn party the one that primarily against abortion? This seems to me to be them telling the population how to think>> Absolutely not - they only want the abortion issue returned to the state level, where it belongs. Interesting question - why is it alright for one side to insist that abortion is okay, but wrong for the other to disagree? Why is one way telling you how to think, but the other is not? You can't have it both ways. <<Money not taken a gift? Pa-leez! Congress is Replcn, why don't they lower taxes?>> That's an easy one - Clinton has already said he will veto any tax decrease, and there aren't enough votes in Congress (it's not ALL Republican, you know) to override the veto. The Republicans have been consistently trying to provide tax decreases througout their tenure, both when they were in the minority and now. <<Take property without compensation? Plz, give an example and where it was under a law passed by the demos.>> Okay - how about asset forfeiture laws - no crime needs to be proven - you don't even need to be charged. This is not being used only for drug forfeiture - it was expanded to include almost any crime, including traffic violations and prostitution by Democrats at local and state levels. It was also expanded at the federal level by the Democrat controlled Congress under Clinton. How about environmental regulations - property that you have owned for years is suddenly re-zoned to be a wetland (even with no water on your land) and you can't build on your property. <<And isn't the Replcn party the one that boasts Pat Bucanan, Pat Robertson, and David Duke as members? Tell me, how do they fit into the picture>> I have no idea what you are getting at here. Are you saying that Republicans should have some sort of rule that allows them to disallow peoples voting registrations? Wasn't Jeffrey Dahmer a registerd Democrat? So what?

To: Mo Chips who wrote (1925)	9/9/1998 9:43:00 AM
From: j_b	Respond to of 67261

<< Siezing property, wasn't this something that became big under the republn appointed drug czar William Bennett>> Asset forfeiture was expanded in 1978 under a Democrat Congress as part of their war on drugs. It was an expansion of the RICO statutes. Nice try, though. <<I don't recall this being so prevailant until the Republican generated drug paranoia.>> It was actually part of the Democrat generated paranoia. They felt that by seizing assets, they would not only look as if they were actually doing something, but could fund favorite programs without obviously raising taxes. The results of the Republican generated paranoia involved things like Nancy's just-say-no program and anti-drug education.