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: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (4961)	9/23/1998 11:57:00 AM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

A valuable perspective. What you say doesn't surprise me at all. But you have the background to speak with some authority on the subject. Short of that level of zealotry there is a large contingent of adherants to the Religious Right philosophy, and "fellow travelers" who really would sign on to many of the roll backs of liberty that Frank Rich describes. I think that column is dead, spot on to the public mood re: Clinton. I also think the media/Washington insider fear of collapse of the rule of law is absurdly overblown. Nothing of the kind is at stake here. It was in Watergate. There's a big difference. If Clinton had refused to reveal his adultery and as a result of that perjury some ordinary American was wrongly sent to jail, or even risked that result, the public would be outraged, and demand Clinton's head. AS would I. The public can very well see this is a case of Clinton's being cornered by his right wing zealous enemies, and maneuvered into some technical legal violations. Which they don't think are very important, despite all the high theory coming out of Washington and most of the media. THEY ARE RIGHT. The uproar and crisis is out of all proportion with the lying when cornered, about his own adultery. Where he should never have been demanded to answer under oath. The public has a much better sense of proportion here than many of the elites. And the public agrees with the view from outside the storm, held by the rest of the world, with few exceptions. Including in other most law abiding lands. (Yes they do exist.) Such as Scandanavia, for example. Doug

To: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (4961)	9/23/1998 12:03:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<< that I was deeply involved with the Evangelicals >> There is no such thing as THE Evangelicals. There are hundreds if not thousands of different Christian sects. What makes a group fundamentalist is their belief that the Bible is absolutely true, and should be the basis of your life. You were probably associated with a fringe group. All ideas have them - even liberals. There are fringe gay groups, fringe environmentalist groups, fringe feminist groups, etc. Just because they are extreme, they get a lot of press. The majority of people that ascribe to an idea or a belief are not extremist, and therefore are ignored by the press. You cannot tar everyone that has a core belief with the extremist views and actions of a very small group. If you were to ask the average fundamentalist (which the media did on a regular basis in relation to the clinic bombings) you will find that they, too, condemn the actions of the extreme fringe. You do the huge majority of Christian fundamentalists a grave disservice when you associate them with that fringe. To put it another way, how would you like to be associated with one of the militant liberal groups from the 60's and 70's such as the SLA (of Patty Hearst fame) or the Weathermen? They claimed to belong to the mainstream liberal movement of the time, but of course were no such thing. <<You don't think these groups are comfortable with violence; I can tell you they are>> There you go again - "these groups". These groups do not represent the majority of the fundamentalists out there. Don't try to lump them all together. That would commonly be known as "prejudice". You don't want to judge a group by the actions or ideas of a small number of its members.