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: cool who wrote (5596)	9/26/1998 8:25:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I happen to largely agree with Grodin on this issue, but I find him so sloppily liberal, that I really don't respect him as a pundit. Even if he does happen to be agreeing with me at the moment. He's a pretty good illustration of a knee jerk liberal, from all that I have seen. I like to call them as I see them, which is not from any fixed point of view. For instance, while I think the liberals have been right to want to help poor people, and right that welfare really isn't all that huge a direct drain on the economy, there has also been a HUGE amount of liberal cant on the issue. And an ideological refusal to discuss many things, and to slant evidence among academics that approached outright fraud, in my view. There was every reason to think that an expansion of welfare in the sixties while all that upheaval was going on, and while most extensive programs were fairly new (at least when combined with civil rights). There was also every reason to realize that some drastic reform was necessary by the time the Contract with America came along. I don't know if we've worked out the right balance, and rather imagine we will find that come the next recession some changes are again necessary, but I was and and am clear that some serious experimental changes were necessary. Because what we had was a disaster for the long term recipients, their offspring, the crime rate, and accordingly the country. Doug

To: cool who wrote (5596)	9/26/1998 8:31:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 67261

Executive order number 30,101: "The court administered oath to American citizen defendents in criminal and civil trials is hereby changed to read, to wit: 'I do solemnly acknowledge that I may, if I feel the matter is of a personal nature, lie most vigorously in my defense; that I am not bound by the constraints of truthful testimony, that I will even be expected to lie baldly, and my lies may not be used against me in a court of law, or against me in any politically motivated so-called investigation by my enemies.' The Presidential Oath will hereby be the same as above, except that the President shall have the full powers of the Executive Office and his employees to use every means available to counter-attack politically inspired so-called investigations by the Judicial Branch, without recrimination or silly charges like 'obstruction of justice'" Since the Fifth Amendment is obviously not enough protection for Americans, th above order should help give Americans better protection from their political enemies. We need these protections described above, otherwise the VRWC will defeat the noble goals of the Clintonistas. Please sign the petition.