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: TigerPaw who wrote (35954)	2/26/1999 11:07:00 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Yes, Tigerpaw. It is just as I suspected. You have no support for your propaganda. Tigerpaw said in message 35922: “[Clinton's] actions were a natural response to the 6 years of unfounded harrassment” Tigerpaw said in message 35937: >Clinton was accussed of misdeeds in an Arkansas land Deal. Nothing came of it,because nothing happended beyond a couple trying to make the best of the so called Reagan economic revival. The rest of it has been simply accusations by political enemies.< I later said, keeping the above in mind: >The accusations were not unfounded. Indeed, as a result of the investigation very many people have been indicted and have served time. Merely because nothing came of it directly regarding Clinton does not mean Clinton was innocent. He may well have simply lied very well, a thing that is a distinct possibility, given his track record in this arena. To call his accusations “unfounded” merely betrays your left bias. It is a left-leaning subjective determination. On the other hand, the facts show us that there were indeed criminal dealings surrounding Whitewater, and since Clinton was involved, he was suspect. Very reasonable.< Perhaps we have spoken past one another. It is possible that in my interpretation of your statement that Clinton was “harassed” without grounds you meant he was technically accused of having done something wrong in Whitewater and that these accusations were unproven. Well I have already admitted as much. Nevertheless this gives no one grounds to claim Clinton “harassed” without cause, merely because he has these many years been suspected of wrongdoing. Again, this goes to show you how subjective this notion of “harassment” is. As I have said, there are many of Clinton's opponents who would no doubt claim the “harassment” quite reasonable. I happen to take this view. The accusations I have heard against Clinton were that he was involved with a shady land deal called Whitewater and that since he was thus involved he should be investigated. These allegations were not unfounded, thus the investigation against Clinton was entirely reasonable. The deal in which he was involved concerned a property called Whitewater. It is inconclusive that he directly did anything wrong, but the fact is crimes were committed surrounding the property, and many people have been punished as a result of those crimes. Since Clinton was involved with Whitewater. He then was a suspect of wrongdoing. Therefore the investigation of his dealings was not unfounded. Indeed it was entirely reasonable. Tigerpaw said the following in message 35937: >[The Clinton investigation] finally culminated in Ken Starr illegally trying to frame the President in a perjury trap for an incident, however titilating, was not in the remotestest scense illegal. Open your mind and you shall see.< I said in reponse: >Very well. You have made several claims here that I challenge you to support with facts. Lay aside all your left-sided propaganda, and support your claims with facts. You have here claimed the actions of Starr “illegal”. (see your statement above) You have also claimed Starr tried to “frame the President”. (see your statement above) You have also claimed the issue Starr brought in contention was not “in the remotest sense illegal.” (see your statement above) I claim each of these claims of yours are mere leftward subjective determinations with no basis in hard fact. Since you first made the claims, the onus now rests upon you to support them. My mind is open. I encourage you now to stick to the above three claims-- your claims. Please be honest. Prove your claims or be revealed as nothing but a propagandist.< My friend. You have made these propagandistic statements and have been challenged to support them. If you are unwilling to take up the challenge, preferring instead to spout obscenities, it is really quite fine by me. But of course we all see it here in all its ill-gotten glory that you have spouted nothing that was the result of any attempts at clear thinking. You are on automatic robotic White House support mode, and this is not very impressive. You have assaulted Starr with the claim he has committed crimes. I challenged you to support each of these propagandistic claims with fact. If you cannot do it, then your statements amount to nothing but faith-promoting propaganda, just as I have said all along.