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: Grainne who wrote (9875)	1/2/1999 3:16:00 PM
From: steve kammerer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Isn't it a shame that any discussion of Clinton immediately leads to other people who have done something Clinton has done. Any discussion brings out discussions of the worst in people. Did that happen during Watergate or Iran/Contra? NO. Clinton's only defense is that he hasn't done anything that someone else has. Great. Maybe it's true but NO ONE has done all the things Clinton has done He has done more to divide this country than anyone else. As far as Paula Jones/Monicagate being only about sex instead of an attempt to deny an American citizen her civil rights and using the entire strengh of US government to bad mouth her, send IRS on her. If Clinton had killed Paula Jones, those people defending Clinton would use same logic. It was only about sex and sex is a private thing and Clinton was embarrassed and this was his way of covering it up!

To: Grainne who wrote (9875)	1/2/1999 4:15:00 PM
From: Big D	Respond to of 13994

Christine, it is very encouraging to see someone from the other side is in touch with reality. You may expect alot of flack from other liberal Demos but at least you bring some integrity to this discourse.

To: Grainne who wrote (9875)	1/2/1999 4:39:00 PM
From: DD™	Respond to of 13994

"I do think that what we know of the darker side of Clinton is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, however." If he behaves so recklessly and so corruptly in his personal life, doesn't it stand to reason that he is likely to behave in the same fashion in his professional/financial/political endeavors? So, we see him exposing his penis to state workers, having oral sex on the job with a subordinate intern, his wife trades cattle futures illegally, he uses a failed land deal in Arkansas to launder S&L monies with his corrupt business partners, etc., etc. DD DD

To: Grainne who wrote (9875)	1/5/1999 1:08:00 AM
From: Borzou Daragahi	Respond to of 13994

Hi Christine I don't disagree with you on mostof your points, except I would like to see the evidence that Clinton's operatives have expended a great deal of energy making sure that Clinton's past doesn't appear in reputable publications. Flynt and Vanity Fair targetted Republicans and Burton not out of a partisan vendetta, IMO, both because right's sanctimonious assaults on Clinton as an adulterer and pervert made them fair game. Remember, though it was technically only about Clinton's alleged lying and obstruction, there's been a lot of rhetoric from the right about Clinton's morals and the moral decline of America. They have made getting Clinton not just a legalistic maneuver to correct a constitutional dysfunction, but an out-and-out moral crusade to salvage the soul of the nation. They turned this into Chicago 1968. Is Clinton too unethical to lead? Perhaps. His slickness was exactly why I could not bring myself to vote for him in 1992 and 1996. Maybe he doesn't have the moral values we should aspire to. But is lack of ethics, sleaziness, an impeachable offense? Is it legitimate to use a lack of ethics as an excuse to invoke the gravest and most extreme constitutional mechanism--the overturning of an election--envisioned by the framers? I think not. Kindest regards

To: Grainne who wrote (9875)	1/5/1999 8:56:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 13994

>>I also think it is curious that people like Larry Flynt, and magazines like "Vanity Fair" feel free to reveal the details of the private sexual lives of Republican politicians at the same time that it seems a great deal of energy and intimidation are extended by Clinton and his operatives to make sure that none of the other allegations about Clinton's past ever appear in reputable publications. I don't think private sex is really the reason that Clinton is in so much trouble legally and politically, so I think the smear campaign by the Democratic dirty tricksters is really sad and pathetic. I say that, incidentally, as a liberal Democrat. I do think that what we know of the darker side of Clinton is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, however. My concern is that he is simply too unethical to lead. Excellent rhetorical question. You are correct of course, Christy. What really is rotten in this whole matter is the Clintonista's attempts to prevent the people's elected representatives from doing their Constitutional duty by threatening them and then smearing their reputations if they do not bend to their Stalinist tactics. Just imagine the media outcry if the "evil" Nixon had even hinted at doing the same. That alone should be more than sufficient for Clinton's removal. You remember when George Stephanopoulos issued his public warning that Clinton would pursue a "scortched earth" policy against anyone who would bring him to justice. Especially noteworthy has been the powerful assist that partisan "journalists" in the major media have given Clinton in that dirty work - the same journalists that have toiled so hard to cover up or explain away Clinton's scandalous past, whether his draft dodging or "bimbo" intimidation; or his scandalous present involving his perjury, bombing of innocents in the Sudan or his sale of missile technology to totalitarian China in exchange for campaign cash. It was shocking and genuinely sickening to see half the House Dems attend a post-Impeachment pep rally to cheer their disgraced leader, just to revel in their shared corruption.