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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (7244)	9/28/1998 5:01:00 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

Since this thread has about 50% degenerated into a fairly vacuous debate on abortion, (which I don't think the Big Creep is accused of yet, at least partly since he's male), I guess I'll just have to weigh in with my considered opinion. Questions that make you go Hmmmm. Do you suppose that the FBI report on the blue stained dress indicates whether the president has had a vasectomy? Anybody dig through the newly released Starr report material to find out? Back on topic: I don't see any big difference between a fetus just before birth and a baby just after birth. So in order to be sure I use a neutral term, I will refer to either entity as a child. I think it is clear that a newly formed child is too inconsequential to require the state to defend it. We don't want to let the power of the state into any unnecessary part of our personal lives. The slippery slope would, no doubt, end with them preventing me from wasting my "seed." (Which is sort of the charge they got that actor - PeeWee Herman on.) So it all boils down to how old should your children get before you are no longer legally allowed to kill them. Currently, the law clearly prevents you from getting rid of them much past the age of 8 or 9 months. I think this is a little extreme. My opinion is that state should allow you to get rid of them up to about 5. Maybe 6 in special circumstances. In any case, they need to be protected by the state when they are old enough to be educated in school. -- Carl

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (7244)	9/28/1998 6:14:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

<< rather, my position has been when faced with the decision between a competent but sexually weak executive & one that reflects a backward ayotollah-type mentality(Falwell, Robertson)......the former is the better of the two evils.>> Your position is not uncommon. However, it is also somewhat in error. Assuming that you felt it was appropriate for Clinton to be ousted because of his actions, you would be left with Al Gore, not someone controlled or influenced by the RR. Even if somehow Al Gore was to be ousted without having named another VP, and Newt managed to assume the mantle, the Republicans would be hard pressed to pass any extreme legislation. Doing so would result in dead adult bodies instead of live Republican Congressmen. The people would literally revolt. Somewhere along the line, you have to stand up for your convictions. If Clinton has done something that would justify his removal if he were a Republican, it should also justify his removal if he's a Democrat (and vice versa).

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (7244)	9/28/1998 9:28:00 PM
From: Big D	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

My Dearest Ann, Your latest missal moves me in that it tells me you are normal although misguided. Our differences regarding abortion or the current legal genocide of the unborn had best be kept for another time. You injected this within your rational because of the "sitting coward" who supports it and you thereby must support him regardless of his treatment of the lifegivers. A trade off on family values. Unfortunately, like so many others, you quickly identify all critics of "The Coward" as Right Wingers, as disciples of Falwell and Robertson or whom ever you have viewed as the ayotallahs. Honestly, I don't know that much about them. If they view chastity, fidelity, integrity, honesty, true to one's wife and friends, protector of the innocent unborn, they can't be entirely bad. If you find great fault with aspiring to these time honored virtues, although not everyone can live up to them, as a lifegiver, wife and mother it's very sad for both you and for those that you should influence. Please try to stop using your anger against those demons and just focus on the actions of one male, "the Coward" that sits in the White House who depends upon your acceptance of the "pop morality" to excuse his behavior and further his ambition. He is white trash, nothing more nothing less. Truthfully, I hope and pray that you and your husband will teach your sons that there are principles that supercede the personal political views of us all. That The Office of the President of these United States should be occupied by those who can stand tall, at least while in the office, and make us proud that he is among many that can represent this country with honor, fidelity and courage. Bouquets.