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: j g cordes who wrote (7809)	10/5/1998 6:10:00 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

I wouldn't compare it to Hitler. What that article purports to show is how people through their self-interests, whether it be the economy, the feminist issues, wealth redistribution, socialized health care, party loyalty, etc., will look the other way when their leader commits indiscretions, illegalities, or even atrocities as in the case of Hitler. Clinton's actions would fall into the first two categories of infractions.

To: j g cordes who wrote (7809)	10/5/1998 6:11:00 PM
From: Big D	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 13994

Thanks for the history lesson, Jr. But I was alive when this was going on. My point, which you uncomfortably must ignore, is that it's obvious that when anyone says "The Coward" should stay in office just because the economy has, was, is good, they are putting their personal interests above what is in the country's best interests. It was the same there too. The point isn't Hilter, it is about the citizens who don't care and don't want hear about it. Too busy with what's good me.

To: j g cordes who wrote (7809)	10/6/1998 10:08:00 AM
From: j_b	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

<< Hitler destroyed the electoral process and made himself the only party in Germany, eventually becomming a dictator>> There are people that believe that Clinton is doing just that - I forget which conspiracy theory it is, but it revolves around some Executive Orders that allow for jailing people for hoarding food, and the likelihood that Clinton will declare martial law over the Y2K fiasco, enabling him to stay in power and even invalidate the next elections. <<Hitler, if you haven't heard yet, declared war on its neighbors including most of Europe.>> Clinton, on the other hand, doesn't declare war, he just puts American troops in numerous countries as peace-keeping forces, and fires missiles into countries without the benefit of having declared war. <<Hitler, instead of having a pattern of trying to hide a sexual misconduct, had a pattern of rounding up German, Czech, Polish, French, Italian, Hungarian and Russian Jews to systematically put them to death.>> Clinton uses character assassination instead of actual assassination. Hitler didn't actually commit the atrocities until well after he was firmly entrenched. Give Clinton time, you never know what he might do. Okay, I'm just having some fun here, but your points are slightly irrelevant. The comparison was with Hitler's Germany, not with Hitler. The people that are supporting Clinton are exhibiting some of the same symptoms as the people that originally supported Hitler. They were willing to vote for anyone who promised them prosperity and a way out of their powerlessness. Also, after the atrocities began, the people turned a blind eye to them - if they denied it was happening, it wasn't happening. After all, you can't PROVE people were being gassed in those camps. The implication is not that concentration camps are about to be opened up in America (again), but that the people are willing to ignore almost anything if it brings them prosperity and power.