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: one_less who wrote (28269)	1/15/1999 7:35:00 PM
From: Thor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Boys, whether we like Clinton or not, we are forgetting one important point. While we all love the way the current economy is going (whether or not you belive Clinton is the cause or effect of the good economy), simply supporting Clinton because of today's economy is short sighted. Likewise supporting Clinton because we like his stand on the enviroment or abortion is also wrong and short sighted. We must look at what the results of our support for Clinton will produce in the long run. Clinton might have been a great leader had he not fallen prey to his own lusts and greed. Just as Nixon might have been a great leader had he also stayed honest. But the facts prove that we can not trust Clinton because of his actions and attitude. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Clinton's actions prove he thinks he is above the law of normal men and women. History shows us that when the leader is corrupt, then the followers become corrupt. We can not have a long term successful economy or long term peace or long term freedom when the leaders and followers are corrupt. Look at Rome, Look at Old Greese, Look at the dozens of other examples of what happens to a country when followers support corrupt leaders. Its better to take our short term lumps now, and remove corrupt leaders (even popular corrupt leaders) than pay for our mistakes for the long term. No man or woman can be above the law. At least the Republicans are willing to "kick out" there corrupt leaders. Where is the honor of the Democrats? If Clinton were a Republican, there is no question that every Democrat as well as most Republicans would demand his removal. Are the Democrats so weak that they have to hang on to this one corrupt leader? Aren't there honest Democrats that can take his place? To try to fool ourselves into thinking this scandle is about sex or lying about sex is wrong. Its about a leader who thinks he is above the law....

To: one_less who wrote (28269)	1/15/1999 7:40:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

<< The tactic is to call names. It sets up a premise that allows dipy to dehumanize you and discount your idea without having given it any consideration.>> Puleez. All the right wingers here who specialized in moronic insults just a few short weeks ago have now cleaned up their acts somewhat, for whatever reason, and now wish to complain whenever they encounter a bit of payback. You yourself, brees, were kind of rejoicing in your prior use of insult when I found time to make a few posts again earlier in the week, and added to your old record for bitter calumny. Unquestionably, you were pleased with yourself. You even bother to compliment others on your side on their particularly dull bits of name calling. But you can only dish it out, never take it gracefully. Tsk. Memories aren't that short. It was you folks who polluted the discussion, typically by responding to a clever riposte that stung just a little too much with a comeback that went something like 'retard - moron - liberal - traitor - woman - et cetera ad nauseum.' Now you find that if pressed we can actually be better at the insult game than you are. Plus expose ourselves to negative consequences less than you do. And you want the impeachment to look a little less like a kangaroo court run by bikers. And the SI management wrote a few of you. So you want to play nice. OK, we can play nice. Fine with us. Just stop wining about last week's insults, will you? I know you can, because I have seen you do it. Always striving to find good in every person, Your friend, Chaz

To: one_less who wrote (28269)	1/15/1999 8:10:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 67261

Is this like the Rev. Pilch and the "leftist ad hominem", brees? If you haven't noticed, name calling goes forth in many directions. If you want to count them up and make some summary judgement, be my guest. The name calling only count when it goes against the side you consider correct? Ok. I'm still quite confused by the idea that anybody owes anybody else answers to their questions here. The questions are usually transparently loaded. In legal matters, it's all blather anyway, the only acknowledged lawyer is also the leading name caller. In political matters, what can you say? You're not supposed to talk about religion and politics in polite company. Back when the invocation of Bob was popular here, I had a little dialog with him when a former participant in this forum managed to attract Bob's attention by addressing me with obscenity, sans coy double entendre, so it showed on the title page . The F word is apparently considered more offensive than the S word. I didn't draw Bob's attention to it, he stumbled upon it on his own volition. As a follow on, I queried Bob on the civility question, his response was "It's a tough thread, wear a cup". That's life.