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: mrknowitall who wrote (13456)	11/6/1998 2:26:00 PM
From: lorrie coey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Well...hello, all... Dr. Livingston, I presume??!! ...a little too ironic, don't ya think?!! hmmm? ...back to the drawing board. "churchhillian".....what a eulogy for newtyman... my word! {no offense mrknowitall} btw, i like this Livingston guy ;}

To: mrknowitall who wrote (13456)	11/6/1998 3:17:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Mr. K - Dan will no doubt respond to your latest message to him, in his own way. But I, too, would like to respond to some of your points, even though they were not addressed to me, because they are important, and should be met head-on, as it were. Your basic point, I gather, is that everyone should condemn what President Clinton has done. Well, I condemn it. But perhaps not as much as you would like, because I am not calling for impeachment. You say this is a government not of men, but of laws. That is part of the problem. I would not go so far as the Dickens character who called the law an ass, but the fact is that the law and the Higher Morality do not always coincide. Perjury, as a legal concept, and lying, as a moral failing, are not synonyms. And there are even some conservatives out there who are not entirely convinced that Clinton can be nailed for perjury. Now, I find myself much more exercised and angry about other things that Clinton has done -- things that probably don't disturb many other people at all (if they have even heard about them). For example, his cowardly abandonment of the Chechens to the tender mercies of Boris Yeltsin, whom he had the gall to compare to Abraham Lincoln. And perhaps even worse, the insistence of the Clinton Administration on pulling out 90% (!!!) of the UN peacekeeping force in Rwanda, the only force capable of at least slowing down the horrendous genocide of the Tutsis there; and then, to cap it off, the Administration's attempts to prevent anyone else from rendering help in time to stop the slaughter of more than half a million people in six weeks! A world record! Mr. K, That's the sort of thing that steams me -- even though it is not "against the law" to fail to provide aid. (It would not have been "against the law" to let Hitler wreak his will over the entire globe, either.) I totally agree with your statement, when applied to Chechnya and Rwanda: "The eventual results of a failure to stand up for what is right and wrong are catastrophic. It leads to chaos and tyranny, and the weak suffer horribly under the boot of the strong." But we cannot impeach Clinton for this either, because that would smack of discrimination: previous Presidents have been guilty of similar sins (normally called "foreign policy failures", sometimes even "successes"). Failure and success -- not right and wrong. Fooey. Well, now, give me a moment to simmer down... What I am trying to say is that I feel I am as "moral" as you are. But my perspective, my priorities, may be different: there are some things that bring me into a state of High Dudgeon a lot faster than others do. The same is evidently true of you. But what bothers me is that you seem to be using an issue that deeply disturbs you as a touchstone for determining other people's moral and ethical worth (or lack of it). Do I misunderstand you? I hope so... jbe

To: mrknowitall who wrote (13456)	11/6/1998 3:45:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 67261

Inanity you say? What post from Dwight do I endlessly refer to? Clinton as Caligula? He didn't give up on that one easily. Clinton the cocaine addict? Didn't give up on that one either. You want to point to the URLs, I'll go back and reread it. You don't much seem to like bringing up old posts, though, preferring to rely on your perfect misremembering. Dwight's preached a lot of pretty hateful things in the name of Christianity. Then he wants to lecture me on my own shortcomings. With my extensive training from the ever substantial posts you and Bill Vaughn have sent my way, from the time of my first personal forays into the political cesspool, personal attacks don't much affect me any more. I don't particularly see much point in trying to sneak any substance in, either, though. I've tried from time to time. I'll stack up url's against you or any of your pals. Nobody seems much interested in that kind of substance, though. Drudge RULEZ!!!! You want to explain to Dwight about the difference between prenatal care and neonatal care, be my guest. You want to take on the masterpiece of logic in this one: i.e. after 26 weeks, fetal death is far more likely due to causes other than abortion. Wrong, according to Planned Parenthood. On their website, they state that after the 24th week, the health risks of having an abortion and carrying the fetus to term are about equal. (http://www.techstocks.com/~wsapi/investor/s-22539/reply-11129) be my guest too. I quoted the source of the numbers on that one, nobody seems to see fit to dispute them. They prefer other means of exposition. As far as fuzzy logic, well, I guess that puts me up there in the idiot contingent, the majority of people in this country who don't thing BJgate merits impeachment. All the idiots who have the temerity to disagree with you and the other Clinton haters here on the matter. It's just politics. Spare me the patronizing lecture, you can preach that Clinton is the cause of all that's bad in the world all you want. Maybe the Republicans should have made more of an issue of the whole thing before the election. That was my modest proposal, you know. But it was all so UNKNOWABLE, right, Mr. K? Somehow, the Republican leadership seems to think they made too much of an issue of the whole deal the way it was. Maybe you could write to them, set them straight too. Taking his share of the blame for his party's losses, the Georgia Republican said he had misjudged how the public would recoil from the Clinton scandal and how the scandal would drown out other Republican themes. "I mean I totally underestimated the degree to which people would just get sick of 24-hour-a-day talk television and talk radio and then the degree to which this whole scandal became just sort of disgusting by sheer repetition," Gingrich said. (from nytimes.com ). Tell it to Newt, Mr. K., or to his successor. Explain to him how the people want MORE, not less. Once they really understand how Clinton is responsible for the decline of the West, they'll come around. Go ahead, make my day. Cheers, Dan.