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: Borzou Daragahi who wrote (28328)	1/16/1999 1:27:00 AM
From: Borzou Daragahi	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

"In the land of the pious hypocrite, the honest pornographer is king." I love New York Times columnist Frank Rich. Throughout Forni-gate, he's been consistently dead-on, not to mention scathingly brutal in his assessments of the Democrats, Republicans, the president, the media, and the public. nytimes.com January 16, 1999 JOURNAL/ By FRANK RICH Larry Flynt Stoned We didn't need Larry Flynt to tell us that Bob Barr is a hypocrite. The Georgia Congressman's sleazy marital history was already public back in '96 when he had the gall to champion an absurd bill called the Defense of Marriage Act -- which that other proud defender of marriage, Bill Clinton, then signed into law. But we may need Larry Flynt anyway -- not to expose any impeachment manager's sex life but simply because his very presence exposes the disingenuousness of everybody else, conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat, press and public, who inhabits the epic Bosch canvas that is Monicagate. In the land of the pious hypocrite, the honest pornographer is king. After a year in which the President repeatedly told us he didn't have sex with that woman, and his antagonists repeatedly told us that their case "is not about sex," and the media constantly lamented how horribly sad they were to be covering this sex-driven, albeit lucrative, story, Mr. Flynt's candor is downright refreshing. In interviews, he refers to himself as a "smut publisher" who wants "to sell [his] magazine," not a public-minded seeker of truth. He openly declares his partisanship ("I love Clinton. He's a great President.") and eagerly declares his hope to have "the effect of derailing the impeachment process." The Hustler editor who serves as Mr. Flynt's collaborator in tracking down Congressional trysts unabashedly describes their enterprise as "vandalism," not journalism. It is almost too delicious to watch Mr. Flynt throw his higher-minded colleagues in the news business into conniptions. Washington's bloviator-in-chief, David Broder, brooded on PBS about how "the mainstream press" is now having its agenda set by "the bottom-feeders in our business" -- and yet he works for the paper (The Washington Post) that first asked the adultery question to a Presidential candidate (Gary Hart) and is a regular on "Meet the Press," the first mainstream Sunday gabfest that made a panelist out of Matt Drudge, the Clinton-haters' answer to Flynt (though not as factually accurate). Mr. Flynt's antics have similarly prompted many mainstream TV news outlets -- CNBC, ABC's "20/ 20," CNN, "CBS This Morning" -- to demonstrate yet again that, for all their pious declarations to the contrary, the scandals they care most about are those with sex. The sexual allegations about Mr. Barr have received far more play than the revelations of the Congressman's involvement with a white supremacist organization -- much as TV pursued Monica rather than Clinton fund-raising and wag-the-dog scandals, and largely ignored Henry Hyde's S.&L. shenanigans and Dan Burton's campaign-finance chicanery to air their sexual histories instead. The viewing audience, which tells pollsters it's had enough sex, exercises its own hypocrisy by rewarding Mr. Flynt's appearance on "Rivera Live" with the show's highest rating since the O. J. civil verdict. The other hypocrites unmasked by Mr. Flynt's pranks could fill a cabinet department. It's hard to stop laughing when Dick Morris, who sucked prostitutes' toes while on the White House payroll, decries the publisher for "degrading American politics." Jerry Falwell, a past Flynt legal foe, now goes on TV to condemn his old adversary's tactics -- never mind that Mr. Falwell himself marketed a video accusing the President of murder. Conservative politicians and publications that happily feasted on a tabloid's purchase of Gennifer Flowers's revelations and the recent Drudge-spread hoax about an illegitimate Clinton son are now fuming about Mr. Flynt. Liberals and feminists who vehemently attacked a Hollywood film for ostensibly sanitizing the Hustler publisher's odious depiction of women are curiously silent about his pursuit of Barr & Co. As for the President, his spokesman, Joe Lockhart, says that his boss wants Mr. Flynt to "cease and desist." Oh, puh-leeze! Larry Flynt is a bull in the china shop of false pieties, empty pretensions and sexual sermonizing that have brought us to this low moment in American history. On Thursday, alas, he checked into a Los Angeles hospital with pneumonia. The networks that have been broadcasting soap operas rather than the Senate trial their anchors keep telling us is "historic" can only pray that Mr. Flynt, who has it in his power to make impeachment must-see TV again, gets well soon.

To: Borzou Daragahi who wrote (28328)	1/16/1999 1:33:00 AM
From: Bob Lao-Tse	Respond to of 67261

Thanks for the considered response. I wasn't around for what was apparently Pilch's heyday, and I haven't gone back to research his posts, but I do know the type of Republican of which you speak. While I agree that this type of hatred, and especially when expressed as policy, is probably more dangerous than the liberal spew, I believe that his sort of hatred is the exception, while the Democratic hatred of all things Republican is the rule. It's not really the intensity of it, it's the pervasiveness of it that bothers me most. As for Baldwin, who really cares what Alec Baldwin says during some unfunny skit on a second-rate late-night television show? Well, I do. I was very disturbed by it. I was also very disturbed by Helms' just-barely veiled threat against Clinton. Both bode ill for our future. But the difference to me is that Helms is an unmannered clod from whom such behavior is expected. I personally think that it was more disturbing that the threat against Hyde came from Alec Baldwin then it would've been if it had come from, for instance, Barney Frank. I don't know. I stopped posting for awhile because I was so frustrated. The only thing that it seems I can state categorically is that we're declining and falling even as I write this, and I find it increasingly hard to care about the direction that decline takes. I really can't think of a resolution to this situation that will benefit we the people. Machiavelli really would've been proud of the way the government has us at each other's throats. -BLT

To: Borzou Daragahi who wrote (28328)	1/16/1999 2:33:00 AM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 67261

Borzou, only in the days of politically correct (anti) free speech would people believe words and name calling are worse than promoting the action of killing another persons entire family with stones. One is speech or thought, the other is illegal actions. BIG BIG difference my friend. Don't assume because I am clarify this ridiculous notion for you that I support what Mr Pilch has said in that regard. If I were to list all the brazen childish names describing real hatred toward Republicans on this thread. Would it make any difference? A lot of people on this thread (including myself) say a lot of wrong things for the right reasons. That is what happens when you live in a society built on the concept of free speech and thought. Michael

To: Borzou Daragahi who wrote (28328)	1/16/1999 12:11:00 PM
From: miraje	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Borzou, On this thread, both sides have thrown nasty insults at each other. But the one guy whose rhetorical vitriol far exceeds anyone else's in the hate department is Johannes Pilch, a religious conservative who has all but labelled homosexuals subhuman, called Americans "whores" and the liberals here "filthy sodomites." Not once, in my recollection, has any conservative taken him to task on his unconcealed hatred of homosexuals, mainstream American opinion, or liberals. Being a proud, filthy, American whore myself, I can tell you that I find the Reverend's posts to be a source of extreme amusement. His sporadic outbursts certainly liven up the thread. What I find really bizarre is that, aside from his fixation on "deviant" sex, bodily fluids and excretory functions (similar to Flynt, I might add), I suspect the majority of his political views are similar to mine. I'm sure the Rev would shudder in dismay to learn that a self-professed whore (that's me, in spades) would agree with him about anything. Being a libertarian makes for strange political bedfellows, depending on the issue at hand. Sleep with the right fiscally, sleep with the left socially. LOL! Meanwhile when LesX, the founder of this thread, advocated violence against Republicans, all the left-of-center types joined together in condemning his hateful rhetoric. You notice that he hasn't posted since that episode? I'm sure he got kicked off SI and I wouldn't be surprised if certain individuals in uniform paid him a visit. Regards, JB

To: Borzou Daragahi who wrote (28328)	1/16/1999 7:48:00 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

You can't be a good democrat and quit smoking. Slick has some new programs to be funded by yet another 55 cent tax. The last sham was a tax on smokers, not on the companies and this one, well shit, they jump the kid issue and go for the tax.

To: Borzou Daragahi who wrote (28328)	1/17/1999 1:53:00 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

It seems that we have reached a point where it is demanded that the sensitivities of every group in America must be taken into account. With the sole exception of the concerns for Conservatives or Christians. How often have we heard this one while discussing Bill Clinton. "Don't force your values down our throats"? The liberal secular left has introduced sexual indoctrination and condom distribution to eleven year old public schools students. It has made the enjoyment of tobacco the moral equivalent of child molestation. It has dramatically increased the illegitimacy rate. It has created an entertainment industry that brings smut and vulgarity into our living rooms with amazing efficiency. It encourages Partial Birth abortions and forces everyone else to pay for them. And it crusades to control the entire health care system, because they are smarter than anyone else and can run it morally right. Now in it's last hour it see's a lifelong pornographer and probable child molester as it's savior in the name of Larry Flynt. How long will decent Democrats hang on to this charade of leadership and drag the nation into the moral abyss? Has Bill Clinton so hypnotized Democrats that they can't see a future without him? What does this say about their confidence in Al Gore? And what in the world are they going to do in less than 2 years when they can no longer serve their King and Queen?? Bill Clinton once claimed "we would be the most ethical administration in the history of America" or words to that effect. Can you not see the gross hypocrisy in that statement. :-) Take an honest look at the values the secular left has already succeeded in forcing down the throats of Americans. Then look for them to claim your property in the coming years for the moral good of the environment and nation. Their religion is politics, that's why you see some of them spending 12 plus hours a day posting here. Michael