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: Catfish who wrote (10445)	1/24/1999 12:12:00 AM
From: Andrew Martin	Respond to of 13994

Darrell. Don't let the Socialists get away with guising themselves as "progressives". They're stealing the term from the political movement of the same name from the 1890s-1920s. It sought to weaken party affiliation, political machines, crony civil service appointments and other forms of political nepotism and elitism which infected national politics during the 19th century. They favored individual judgement by voters over a party's platform and were responsible for such achievements as state referendums and direct elections of US Senators. The progressive movement contained support from the likes of Theodore Roosevelt and is widely credited with cleaning up politics in its time by making politicians more accountable to the voters and the law. Unfortunately, it took decades for them to make their achievements since the media was against the movement for some time. Nothing seems to have changed since it still appears the media is telling people what to think and is then telling the politicians what the people think. Both now and during the Progressive Era the corporate media serves as the biggest defender of political corruption and status quo. That today's socialists could call themselves "progressives" is just another example of liberal double-speak. It's like when Clinton proclaimed in 1992 that he'd have "the most ethical administration in history". As someone else pointed out it's "The Big Lie" principle in action.

To: Catfish who wrote (10445)	1/24/1999 5:19:00 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

>>>This thread is started to discuss the many scandals of the Clinton administration. This includes sexual indescretions, Filegate, Whitewater, Travelgate, possible perjury, obstruction of justice, illegal campaign contributions, the Chinese connection, rule by executive order, Vince Foster, Ron Brown, and any other Clinton Administration misdeeds or incompentence.<<< No, I don't believe you started this thread to discuss these matters. You started this thread to spill dirt. For you to say you started this thread for any other reason is, in short, disingenuous. Let's see now, Whitewater, including the Monica portion of the investigation is what, up to 50 million dollars now? And this doesn't even take into account the cost of running the House and the Senate throughout these dliberations. And, oh yeah, there was another 20 million dollars investigating Mike Espy, who was found innocent in court of all charges against him. Don't ya just love the conservatism of the Republicans? Well, let's examine your header: 1) Sexual indescrtetions--Nice job! Your side now has got this in the Senate and on daily television where every young child in America can especially learn about the dos and don'ts of sex. 2) Filegate--Your man investigated this and found nothing. 3) Whitewater--This was mentioned five times in the special prosecutor's report to Congress. Now, was this really a Whitewater investigation? Or was it due to a motivation similar to the manner in which you wrote the header on this thread? I suspect the latter. 4) Travelgate--Your man investigated this and found nothing. 5) Possible perjury--Really now, how many readers have lied over sex? Be honest with yourselves now. You don't wanna get rung up for perjury. 6) Obstruction of justice--Such charges are nearly comical, if not comical. Obstruction of justice is far worst than what we're seeing in the Senate right now. You might consider asking a ghetto child what the true definition of obstruction of justice is. 7) Illegal campaign contributions--This shoe is on both Republican and the Democrats feet. So what's your issue here? What's the matter, you didn't like Nixon's buddy's Robozo and Vesco? Were too many of the Abscam congressmen Republicans? 8) The Chinese connection--Oh, and I guess Bush didn't have any such connections when he was president and opening the door for his brother to build golf courses in China. Bush did do quite a bit of work over there, you know. 9) Rule by executive order--What else is new? 10) Vince Foster--Now there's a reach on your part. 11) Ron Brown--No one likes being dead from plane crashes, including him. Nice of you to be sympathetic to his family. 12) And any other Clinton Administration misdeeds or incompentence--Well, let's, since we're on this subject, include any other Bush Administrations misdeeds or incompetence; Reagan Administration misdeeds or incompetence and so on moving back through all of America's time and history. In closing, you, my friend, are way, way, too, too far to the very right you end up getting it all wrong! I guarantee ya, you miss a lot that's precious in life when you only think like you do. But I guess diversity has always been a word Republicans have had difficulty with and have always tripped over. Now, get this--I don't like Clinton either! But I don't like him for reasons which are far more valid than the trashy saspisash you place in your header. In short, Republicans will give us an oil change; Democrats will give us a tune-up--but what we really need is an overhaul. I basically take the position where I say right on to the inventors and marketers of the hula-hoop, the pet rock, rubrick's cube, etc., but damn the creep who deprives children of shelter, food, medicine and the right for economic opportunity when they grow up. And, of course, this is a problem which is not only unique in America. But to build a better world--I guess according to how I'm reading your views--would destroy the sanctity of how you view the Republican Party. I'm sorry, my friend, but country club politics have never been for the good of everybody. Good luck in trying to develop a consciousness stream that is considerate of all of the people, instead of just the Republicans!

To: Catfish who wrote (10445)	1/24/1999 9:06:00 AM
From: j g cordes	Respond to of 13994

Disregarding your rhetoric, what specifically are you against which the democratic socialists promote? Of course they should all be rounded up and put in security camps and have their homes broken into. * Is it a fair wage? * Is it minimal equality in the work force and employee fairness? * Is it that some might be against the quirks of capitalism like Gates becomming more wealthy/powerful than 90% of the countries on earth? * Is it you like DDT in your soil? * You want the government to fund your child's private education? * Perhaps your tax money shouldn't be spent on educating poor? * Perhaps my tax money shouldn't help your retirement? * You don't think new parties should be formed in the US? * Perhaps you think its great that companies like NIKE could have made sneakers for three bucks using child labor in the poorest countries and sell them here for an obscene markup? Just like the investors who backed the pillaging of South America and the slave trade.. hey its a free market!