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: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (24610)	12/27/1998 1:15:00 AM
From: Bob Lao-Tse	Respond to of 67261

Allright. That last one was a little crass. Sorry folks, I have read the terms of use and should know better. It's just that there's hardly anyone on the face of this Earth that I dislike more than Rush Limbaugh.

To: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (24610)	12/27/1998 1:16:00 AM
From: PAT JENNING	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

OK, I get it. You're one of the purists who really believe this is all about perjury. Never mind the connections between Starr and the reactionaries and the fact that Paula Jones case was funded by the right wing. Who cares if Starr wanted Lewinksy to wear a wire into the White House (interesting to speculate what would have happened had she agreed, and the secret service detected it -- perhaps an espionage indictment for both her and Starr). Never mind five years of character assassination. But then, that's American politics. I can't wait until the Republicans get a president in office (if they ever do again). LBJ once said, "The difference between your party (the Republicans) and ours is that we don't hate your president." Well, that can change, and with the power of the internet, you can bet that no president, Republican or Democrat, will ever be free from the scurrilous attacks that Clinton has suffered.

To: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (24610)	12/27/1998 12:20:00 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

Bob, I too am a conservative. By default that makes me a Republican. I believe in helping the needy - I see Democrats as using the help programs a gifts to a constituency where any discipline in how the gifts are used is an abuse. For instance, the college loans that are defaulted are on are a disgrace. The phoney trade schools that get money are a disgrace. Help the people yes, but punish severly those who rip off all of us in the process. On Social Security we need to help the needy. We do not need to help the rich. Democrats treat any idea that restricts benefits to anyone as an opportunity to demogouge the issue. An honest discussion - hell no never. Means testing is an absoute necessity to save this program. The list goes on an on. Help people in need. Make people who do not need help support themselves. Finally, the well spring of wealth for all of us is the economy. The health of my company directly effects my own well being. Corporate profits are good - not evil. Does anyone, even Pezz, think that if there had not been a Republican congress to moderate this president that we would have a budget surplus. LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN. DOES ANYONE THINK THAT WITHOUT A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS TO MODERATE THIS PRESIDENT THAT THERE WOULD BE A BUDGET SURPLUS? So, to what party does one go who believes in fiscal responsibility an applied common sense to problems. I see no alternative. For instance I would consider voting for Bob Kerry or Paul Tsongas. Howevr, you see how far they got in democratic primaries. Tsongas was doing great until he got distracted by the abortion debate. Enough! Bob