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: jbe who wrote (8317)	10/15/1998 5:11:00 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

Jim, that's an interesting take. Let me try and outline where I think you have gotten off base, at least from my perspective. I believe the supporter of Clinton, are showing almost a blind faith in defending him simply because he is a Democrat, and liberal. It has nothing to do with acceptance in my mind. I believe my post have tended (instead of judging moral attitudes) toward exposing what I see as complete hypocrisy. Let me ask a few questions to show why. Why were the Democrats the first ones to scream bloody murder for the heads of Clarence Thomas and Bob Packwood, yet so accepting here? Why were they after anyone and everyone remotely associated with the tailhook party? Why did the media play special after special expressing outrage over tailhook? Where is Patsy Shroader now? Where is the outrage? There is only one main difference between those episodes and this administration. They were Republicans or part of the eeevil military industrial complex. Which liberals never hesitate to go after. To me it's simply gross hypocrisy! Nothing more, nothing less. If Ronald Reagan had been caught getting blow jobs in the Oval office from an intern, I have no doubt the same people who are claiming tolerance, would be screaming for his head! We wouldn't be arguing over whether it was legal or not, whether he lied or not, we would be arguing over whether he should go to jail after being impeached or not! There would be special after special run on T.V. decrying the moral decay of the country, he would be blamed for everything from teenage pregnancy to every rape in the country. The NOW gang would be on every television show in America decrying the abuse of woman, the degradation of woman rights, and on and on. I honestly don't even think it's debatable. The evidence is so overwhelming. Can you honestly say you don't believe this would be happening? Michael

To: jbe who wrote (8317)	10/15/1998 5:13:00 PM
From: Borzou Daragahi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

I have long felt that the subtext to the whole Lewinksy matter consisted of a cultural battle between visions of a Talibanist morally pure City upon a Hill America, as represented by Kenneth Starr, and that of a tolerant America that accepts all sorts of religious, social, and cultural practices so long as they don't trample on the rights of others, as represented (unfortunately) by Bill Clinton, whose politics I do not share. In a way it goes back to the colonial-era conflict between puritan Massachussetts, obsessed with purging the colony of heretics, adulterers, and people of darker skin, and rogue Rhode Island, embracing anyone--slave, Indian, Catholic, witch--who wanted to make some quick money and live free. Is this a duel between the ghosts John Winthrop and Roger Williams?

To: jbe who wrote (8317)	10/15/1998 8:32:00 PM
From: George Coyne	Respond to of 13994

Interesting discourse on values. I feel the basic problem is that Clinton has only two basic values; self-aggrandizement and self-preservation. G. W.