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: greenspirit who wrote (34075)	2/15/1999 10:59:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Keyes does not so much remind me of King as he does Patrick Henry. Dr. King to my way of thinking was this country's last great orator. In his “I have a dream” speech we have one of the ten most extraordinary addresses of human history. I encourage everyone here to very closely analyze the speech, being sure to keep in mind the context in which it was given. The manner in which King set forth principle to make his case was extraordinary in that it simultaneously and with equal force both assaulted hardened hearts and quickened sloppy minds. America's more reasonable leaders at that time had little choice but to accept King's argument because long before King they had claimed to have committed themselves to the principles underscored therein. The fact of America's stated and much touted principles was a great cudgel in King's hands, and he used it gently but effectively. He knew that by turning America's words upon the populace, calling it toward its own stated principles, its hypocrisy would stand in painfully sharp relief. He trusted in the soul of America's leadership to sense this pain and by reason desire to advance his "dream”. King's force of heart was of such a remarkable degree that it made these leaders want to correct the great logical disparity of his day. Keyes reminds me of King in that he also has the skill to assault hardened hearts and quicken sloppy minds. Nevertheless his circumstances are markedly different from those of King. In a country where 70% of the populace openly accepts a flagrant liar and cheat for their leader, and where one of two major political parties vehemently promotes this error while staring principle straight in the face, Keyes perhaps thinks there is little room to trust the reasonableness of that party any more than Patrick Henry could trust the reasonableness of George III. To his mind the Democrat party is indeed an accomplice in the recent open assault upon America's judicial system and society. It is that party that unanimously rose up to champion the acceptance of a repeated lawbreaker and flagrant cheat. Instead of erring on the side of principle, decency and law, it chose to err on the side of lies, pornographers and expedience; and with the help of the media it convinced the entire country to do likewise. When Keyes calls them “criminals”, he speaks from a point of principle. Like Henry, he underscores the severity of the issue by illustrating how his opponents have no soul and are therefore no longer entities with which one can reason, but those against which one must fight, even at extraordinary cost.

To: greenspirit who wrote (34075)	2/16/1999 12:50:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I quoted from the Post editorial page precisely because there are Democrats who are hard, if not hard enough, on the president. It didn't occur to me that you were seriously taking them as Republicans. Also, it is absurd to brand Dole as a Rockefeller Republican, and your comments besmirch a great American, who has been consistently pro- life in his career, and who has stood up for American ideals. Apparently you never heard of President Reagan's 11th commandment, "thou shalt not speak ill of other Republicans". But the main thing is that Ronald Reagan tried to avoid polarizing rhetoric when it was possible, and tried to maintain cordial relations with the opposition party to the extent possible. On an issue like this, it is simply over- blown and unnecessary to lump all Democrats into an amoral mass.