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: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (37221)	3/8/1999 3:57:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

But good Christian Dwight, I thought you were going to ignore me. Anyway, is the Clinton scandal about sex, or isn't it? Make up your mind. Perjury, the votes are in, the House wouldn't even pass direct perjury, and the convoluted perjury about perjury to the Grand Inquistor only got 45 votes. As for engaging brain, perhaps you'd like to engage your so-called brain on this. The Broaddrick story helps explain why House GOP leaders seemed so passionate in their hatred of Clinton. They thought he was a rapist, though they knew they couldn't prove it. They could have fashioned an impeachment charge for assault (the statute of limitations would not have applied to impeachment), but they didn't dare. The story was old, and Henry Hyde and company didn't want to subpoena Broaddrick and subject her to cross-examination. So they decided to have her story spread privately, to poison the well secretly and impeach the president in part for something he wasn't charged with. Later, they pressured the media to roll the Broaddrick grenade into the Senate trial, with the hope that public opinion might change and the Senate might convict him for being a bad, immoral man. How fair. How constitutional. And how Christian, right, Dwight?

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (37221)	3/8/1999 11:04:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Unity Is Elusive as Religious Right Ponders 2000 Vote You can look up this article in yesterday's NYT if you want, Dwight. Twenty years after the Rev. Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority Inc. propelled religious conservatives into a heavyweight force in U.S. politics, the movement is struggling without a clear strategy, and for the first time a debate has erupted among leading figures over whether they should radically scale back their political efforts. Furthermore, some influential leaders are saying that the best way to change America is not through politics but by building a conservative base through the schooling of children at home or by working to change the hearts and minds of people through Christian preaching and the example of biblically inspired good works. Offhand, I would say that's in line with a conventional interpretation of Christianity. That kind of action sounds good to me. As opposed to "all Clinton hatred all the time", which, to paraphrase George Will, needs some work as a rallying cry for religious proselytizing. I know you'd prefer to be following the latest "who killed Vince Foster" video from Jerry Falwell, though. Or maybe you're more concerned about the negatory effects of gay Tinky Winky? On the political front, I don't regard RR hero Ronald Reagan, who couldn't be bothered to go to church and shipped his kids off to boarding school at the earliest opportunity, a particularly good example of "family values", in the Religious right sense or any other.