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: Les H who wrote (10801)	10/22/1998 6:57:00 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

We don't have to agree with their "solutions". We just have to pay for them. Liberals have this glaring blind spot when it comes to taking money away from people. They have this disconnect between peoples time and their money. You force me to work for you you are enslaving me. It's not about greed, it's all about power.

To: Les H who wrote (10801)	10/22/1998 9:54:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Les, the opposite of "liberal" is not "conservative." It is "illiberal". There can be conservative liberals, and liberal conservatives. But "illiberal liberal" is an oxymoron. A liberal who is illiberal is no liberal. I was talking about liberal values for Pete's sake, values that this country was founded on, and that all true conservatives in this country share. I'll bet you do, too. And take another look again at the context in which the word "Intolerance" came up: ..although the Jews were the primary target of the Nazis, they were not the only ones. The extermination of the Gypsies, for example, is something most people (myself included) know very little about. Then there were the outspoken political dissidents, the mentally retarded, the homosexuals, etc. -- in other words, everybody "different". That is why, if it were up to me, I would have Intolerance declared the Eighth Cardinal Sin. I said nothing about who was or who was not intolerant in America today. Now, as to your use of the term "Left". YOu seem to be using it as coterminous with the term "liberal". But like the term "Right", it was developed, in the context of Europe, to designate one of two extremes of the political spectrum, both of which were predominantly illiberal. When these terms are used, it is always assumed that there is also a center, which is where classic liberals and conservatives alike belong. Whatever happened to the center in your scheme? Left+Right-Center is not a very useful prism, IMO, through which to view this country. The true illiberal left never sank deep roots here; even at the height of its influence here, the US Communist Party had very few card-carrying members. As for the Right, we have had nothing like the Nazis, or the Action Francaise, or the Francoistas, except on a very small scale. Good thing, too, because the illiberal Right has always been tainted with anti-Semitism. Americans have been, and still are, predominantly centrist. Moderate, if you prefer. My opinion, of course. jbe

To: Les H who wrote (10801)	10/23/1998 12:10:00 AM
From: jbe	Respond to of 67261

AMERICAN RADICALS, CLINTON, AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY Les, way back in the distant posting past (about two weeks ago), I argued that the traditional radical left will have nothing to do with either of the two "capitalist parties." You subsequently posted some items demonstrating that some ultra-radical fringe parties have come out in support of Clinton (any Democrat, in a pinch, being better than a Republican). Point taken. So let's go on from there. I have assembled some materials -- for you, or for anyone else who may be interested -- to help illustrate he diversity on the radical Left. First, however, let me say that I am now going to abandon the term "Left" altogether (as per my immediately preceding post to you), and use "radicals" instead. Okay? :-)) I would subdivide American radicals into a number of different groups -- fringe-group Marxists; anarchists; dogmatic radicals (mostly intellectuals like Noam Chomsky); populist-progressives (pure American tradition); pragmatic radicals; single-issue radicals (e.g., Greens). The fringe-group Marxists are interesting only as an historical curiosity; nobody even reads their newspapers, except their tiny memberships (and curiosity seekers like yourself, Les). The Anarchists are more fun (naturally), but they too are pretty much out of it. So, let's proceed to those who are closer to the "mainstream." 1) Here's an interesting piece, from the paper of the Democratic Socialists (pragmatic radicals), entitled: "Are The Democrats the Third Party We Have Been Looking For?" dsausa.org Some particularly relevant passages: So what are we on the left to do?...Some will continue to argue that there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats on key issues and doggedly reject any association with Democrats whatsoever. ....Currently, on the Left, there is a widespread search for and activity in trying to build a "third party." We've seen GreenParties, New Party affiliates, Labor Party Advocates, Ron Daniels Campaign for a New Tomorrow, and other more state-specific parties like the Peace & Freedom Party. While many activists are looking to strengthen those third parties (and I would not argue with doing so in many cases), I think we on the Left should also be working to strengthen the other "third party": namely the Democratic Party .....Obviously, when we speak of strengthening this third party, we don't mean every candidate, but the parts of the Democratic Party that are progressive and tied to grassroots forces.... Note the approving reference to the Christian Right, and the call to utilize the same strategy vis-a-vis the Democratic Party that the Christian Right used vis-a-vis the Republican Party: The Christian Coalition learned many lessons from the New Left in organizing and mass action. We should take some lessons from the Christian Right in order to create a disciplined mass organization that can take control of party machineries in states acr oss the country, run our own candidates in the primaries, and force more conservative members of the Democratic Party to move to the left or forfeit their seats. 2) Clinton specifically. Here is a very hostile piece, published on a site run by a populist type (calls himself The Golem). The piece is a pastiche of uniformly damning quotations from various radical writers (including Chomsky). The piece is about Clinton's policies (no scandal here). The title is "Clinton More Conservative than Reagan or Bush." (I have posted this URL before.) It is accompanied by some bouncy piano music, so it's rather fun to read. atlantic.net 3) Clinton Again. This is The Golem himself on Clinton's personal misdeeds. He is as harsh on Clinton as any right-wing Republican could be. This is the difference: he considers Clinton to be only the symptom of a rotten system. That is evidenced by the title ("They All Lie"). "Get rid of Clinton -- and then get rid of the rest of them." atlantic.net 4) Z-Net on Clinton. Z-Net is the prime radical source on the web. Unfortunately, the only thing you can link to from outside the site is the home page. I recommend going to the links column on the left side of the home page. Then click on ZNetSearch (under New User Links). When the Search page comes up, enter "Clinton." You will get links to 200 articles. The ones I looked at were all extremely critical. They were all "behind the times" (the last one I saw was posted in July), so you won't find any comment on the impeachment stuff. What you will find is plenty of comment by prominent radical gurus, illustrating the ideological chasm between Clinton & the radicals. (I recommend Barbara Ehrenreich, a former columnist for Time Magazine. She writes well.) lbbs.org Happy hunting! jbe