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 (6736)	10/2/1998 8:15:00 PM
From: Who, me?	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Michelle, once again, you are trying to lump "a few" with "them all"! Nothing could be farther from the truth! Zealotry sells, whether it's from the right or the left, and the only way you know about "the few" in any over zealous group is because the news played it up for you! I work very closely with Pregnancy Support Centers! I do not know ONE PERSON that's ever engaged in any of the behavior you describe. OTOH, am I to assume that you, as a part of the pro-Clinton crowd, support every left wing, radical cause that some pro-Clinton crowds are associated with? To just lash out at anyone that is Pro-life and Christian as being a stalker is just nonsense! We are as strong in our convictions as you are, but we also play by the rules. Can you say the same for the pro-abortion groups?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (6736)	10/2/1998 8:41:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

<< you've got to admit there is a religious right in this country that has backed some very frightening causes>> I do? There are some people who happen agree on some issues philosophically with the religious right, that have done some pretty scary things. However, I seriously doubt that the majority of people associated with the religious right would do anything violent or would abuse someone else's property or rights. The problem (besides the obvious generalizing that we all do) is that 1)the press pays far more attention to the (relatively) few people acting up than they do to the "normal" member of the RR, and 2)the leaders of the RR haven't come out against the actions of that minority, or at least haven't convinced anyone they actually disapprove. I appreciate your including the "leftist" equivalents. Extremists exist on both sides. <<the Dems dont consider the Earth First crowd to be consequential and gets no money etc from them >> I disagree - I'm sure that members of those groups do donate money to the Democrat candidates and they do volunteer work for them. Notice also that the "mainstream" environmental groups don't distance themselves from the Earth First group any more than the gay groups distance themselves from Act Up. They benefit from the actions of the extremist groups, so they say nothing, good or bad about them. <<So here we are, a smear campaign by the right intended to overturn an election, pure and simple>> I agree about the motivation, but disagree with the characterization. Without discussing anything other than Monicagate, Clinton had an affair. Clinton lied about it - under oath. The RR may be blowing it (sorry about that) all out of proportion - they may be trying to manipulate the public - they may be trying to make it look more serious than it is - those are all interpretations I can understand, but it's not a smear campaign. A smear campaign would be what the White House did when they called Geraldo and told him that McHale had misrepresented his service record, which of course was not true. It was a lie that was told specifically to make McHale look bad and less credible. <<Its just too much like the RR tactics for me>> I don't disagree, but the same could be said of the entire White House spin campaign. Private investigators were hired and FBI files used to intimidate and embarrass women who might testify against Clinton. As I've suggested to others on the boar - read "Spin Cycle" for a fascinating view of the Clinton machine during his White House terms. Clinton is guilty of everything you accuse the RR of, except that he does it for causes you believe in. For the record - I do not support the "impeach him" campaign the way it is being run. It is far too partisan (on both sides). I do support Watergate-style hearings, since I think that's the only way we'll ever get at the truth. I think that Clinton will only be ousted if an obvious pattern of abuse of power is shown through an investigation of Travelgate, Filegate, etc., and if no abuse of power is shown, he should be exonerated.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (6736)	10/2/1998 9:11:00 PM
From: Big D	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

+j b, Michelle is so hell bent on killing little defenseless babies because it's inconvenient or not part of the schedule to care for a life that didn't ask to be brought into the world and had no control or option to say, "thanks, but no thanks". Instead, legal genocide is part of the now,in pop morality. Christ said "suffer the little children, bring them unto me". He didn't say send them to me dead. Michelle could have been wrapped in a wad of kleenex before birth and flushed down the toilet if her mother had thought of her as not fitting into her schedule either. Lucky for her, for everyone else not not so sure.