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: Kaliico who wrote (9466)	12/15/1998 11:39:00 PM
From: Shadow	Respond to of 13994

Friday is starting to look like it might be a really good day!!! Slick might even try saying he's sorry again. We already know he's sorry. He's been sorry for years!!! I'm don't care about any of the legalities. The man is not fit to be President. The sooner he's gone the better. Flame away folks, the louder you wail the more pathetic it sounds. Did you catch Heraldo Rivera tonight. He's was foaming at the mouth about evil Republican conspiracies!!! They had some gal from NOW raving about "Dirty old white men bringing down Our President" I though I was watching Saturday Night Live! I was laughing so hard I thought I was going to die. But no, its all true!! If Bill keeps saying he's sorry long enough we might even get 2/3 in the Senate. Now that would be a REALLY good day!

To: Kaliico who wrote (9466)	12/16/1998 12:26:00 AM
From: SoliRA	Respond to of 13994

I remember reading that - sometime last summer - the DAY after Paula Jone's lawyers failed to settle with Clinton's lawyers after some negotiations, the IRS began an audit on her. How many families in trailer parks to you know who get audited? I know of none. But, let's say one out of a hundred will in a year. Then, the odds of it being the very next day is about 1/365. Then the odds of it being someone involved with a legal case with Clinton is 10/250,000 (about). So, this could be a coincidence, but that would be about one chance in 912 million. That stretches credulity. Kindness to Clinton condones cruelty to the little guys like you and me. He abused power that we the people trusted him with. He's of the same ilk that would claim the "Droit du Signour" (sp?) in past ages. He thinks he's too important to need to worry about someone like Paula. If some guy ordered police who worked for him to bring my daughter to him, then exposed his distinguishing characteristics, and then let her go like nothing happened. Why, I think I would be upset. Mr. Rogers would be upset! Be honest, if Reagan had done that to Pat Schroeder ... what would have been the reaction of NOW? The press got excited when Dan Quayle mispelled "Potato". Think of what would have happened! Mr. Clinton aspires to bring a new noble class to America, above the law. He belongs in France, not here. The cost of NOT impeaching, and then ousting him is too great. Gore or even Albright would make fine Presidents. Give them a shot. This is not as bad as shooting innocent children in Nicaragua, mind you. Your CIA friend took the same oath as US Military personnel, I think, to defend the Constitution. He had an obligation to disobey illegal orders. It's our obligation to support him.

To: Kaliico who wrote (9466)	12/16/1998 7:40:00 AM
From: Liatris Spicata	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Kaliico- To my way of thinking, backing the Contras- and the manner in which the Reagan Administration dealt with it- did not represent official corruption. That is not to say that it represented sound policy or execution thereof. Even if RR and George were "out of the loop", which strains credibility, it was still officials acting on what they thought were the best interest of the US and Nicauragua and in accord with the president's wishes. Please, I'm not defending the policy, although I'd note the Ortega brothers were not exactly boy scouts. Ask the Mesquito Indians they butchered. US officials may have legitimately believed they had to lie to protect national interests and live of our allies. These are not trivial concerns, and they may justify official lying IMO. Of course, I too would share a sense of outrage if CIA operatives engaged in the murder of innocents or non-combatants. To the extent it happened, the facts should be brought to light- one wonders why this administration has not done so. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, is reasonably accused of perjury simply to protect his own ass. He is a deeply corrupt man, and so is that bitchy wife of his who got Bill's "friends" to slip her a cool $100,000 via rigged commodity trades- BTW, I don't believe for a minute that Bill was unaware of it. Even his touching protestations about wanting to shield his family ring hollow. His actions with Monica were simply a continuation of a lifelong pattern about which Hillary was well aware. He was not so concerned about the effect on his family that he would refrain from his lifelong pattern of infidelity in a manner that his wife would certainly know about. In the so-called scandals you refer to during the Reagan administration, nobody in the administration got rich. The same cannot be said of recent Democrat presidents, with the exception of Jimmy Carter (well that leaves LBJ and Bill). Now do you have any appreciation for why some of us hold the current president in such low regard? Larry