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 (38644)	3/16/1999 4:33:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 67261

I told you, it's catching... It's the new plague!

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (38644)	3/16/1999 4:54:00 AM
From: JBL	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Hands off the little con you pompous windbag. I'm stupid and you're not. Who killed Vince Foster anyway ? On to another topic : Dick Morris is really turning on his former Master... Check this one... He doesn't even give him the benefit of the doubt... CAN RUDY BEAT THE WHITE HOUSE? N.Y, Post 3/16/99 DICK MORRIS For educational and discussion purposes only. Not for commercial use. IT sounded like an ordinary presidential radio address. Every Saturday for six years, President Clinton, like Reagan and Bush before him, has taken to the radio to deliver a 10-minute homily to the nation. Since 1995, Clinton has used these opportunities to make news about a host of topics from education to crime to Social Security. But this past Saturday was special. Clinton's topic of choice happened to be police misconduct. Funny choice of subjects. Could he be referring to the shooting of Amadou Diallo last month, the unarmed West African who died in a hail of police bullets? The White House piously noted that this was ''an obvious'' example of what Clinton meant. Now why would the president, who has no responsibility for any local police force, choose to speak out on such a topic? Is it just a coincidence that his remarks hit home to New Yorkers worried about the police under Rudy Giuliani? Could the president be trying to sully the image of his wife's putative opponent for the United States Senate? If you believe Clinton's remarks were coincidental, you don't know Bill and you sure don't know Hillary. They were the beginning of a carefully orchestrated effort to use the White House to dirty the mayor so the First Lady can defeat him for the Senate. Saying he was ''deeply disturbed'' about allegations of police brutality, the president's speech comes after his appointees to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights announced that they will hold hearings on police brutality against minorities in May. Where? Oh yes. In New York. Another coincidence. Clinton dressed up his speech with a ''plan'' to curb police brutality. He allocated $40 million to improve police training ($60 per cop nationwide - you can do a whole bunch of training for 60 bucks!). He's spending $20 million for education in integrity and ethics. Add another $20 million for college scholarships, $2 million for recruiting minority cops, and $5 million for citizen police academies to inform neighborhoods about police procedures. It all adds up to an $87-million contribution to Hillary's campaign. One suspects the president's announcement had three audiences. One was Rudy. Message: If you run against my wife, you'll have to contend with me! Another target was the voters of New York. For them, the message was simple: Rudy stinks. But the third audience was the most interesting: Hillary herself. The message for her? I can help you a whole lot more if we stay married than if you walk out. The New York press faithfully covered the president's speech. The Post headline read: ''Prez: I'll restore your faith in cops.'' Nobody even cracked a smile when Clinton said that the key issue was restoring public trust in the police. Bill Clinton's a great one to restore public trust. One word from him and it's bound to be restored! The president's posturing ignored some important facts about the NYPD. Complaints to the Civilian Complaint Review Board are down by 11 percent over the past two years, even though the size of the police force has increased. Complaints which relate to the use of physical force have dropped by almost a quarter. But since Hillary's interest in running for the Senate is up 100 percent, the criticism has started to rain down on the police of New York. The president's choice of the radio address to initiate the charges against the police is interesting. The advantage of the radio address is that it is not covered by any live reporters on location. There is no chance that Clinton would be asked any embarrassing questions like ''is this statement related to Hillary's candidacy?'' The radio address is a free shot on goal and Clinton used it Saturday in just that way. This announcement is, of course, just the start. Look for a sudden federal interest in the affairs of New York City. One suspects that clean-air lawsuits, actions against city prisons and hospitals, anti-corruption initiatives and a whole slew of other targeted enforcement actions against Gracie Mansion are not far off. We have never had a president - or his wife - run for Senate while they still control the White House. Especially not against a mayor who depends on Washington for a goodly portion of his annual operating and capital budgets. Federal revenue-sharing dollars underwrite every portion of the city budget - and so justify federal scrutiny of New York's day-care centers, foster-care agencies, welfare administration, homeless shelters, jails, sanitation collection, fire protection, purchasing procedures, contracting processes and everything else. By using a combination of speeches, conditions attached to federal funding, regulatory action and lawsuits, the federal government can basically be used to run a negative campaign against the mayor. We have often seen political rivalry between the mayor and the governor - whoever they may be - turned to the city's disadvantage at budget time, but the sight of the full power of Washington being turned on New York City's government will not be pretty to behold. This new interest of the president's is really quite a role reversal. In the past, Clinton has taken the high road while Hillary ran the negatives. She orchestrated the dumping on administration critics and the attacks on Republican adversaries while Bill remained above the fray. Now, the president is running the negatives while Hillary stays above the battle. Bill Clinton may not be faithful, but he sure is loyal.

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (38644)	3/16/1999 5:40:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

This is a passage from Chesterton's book "Orthodoxy", which I highly recommend: It is a large matter and too much to one side of the road to be discussed adequately here; but this is the real objection to that torrent of modern talk about treating crime as disease, about making a prison merely a hygienic environment like a hospital, of healing sin by slow scientific methods. The fallacy of the whole thing is that evil is a matter of active choice whereas disease is not. If you say that you are going to cure a profligate as you cure an asthmatic, my cheap and obvious answer is, "Produce the people who want to be asthmatics as many people want to be profligates." A man may lie still and be cured of a malady. But he must not lie still if he wants to be cured of a sin; on the contrary, he must get up and jump about violently. The whole point indeed is perfectly expressed in the very word which we use for a man in hospital; "patient" is in the passive mood; "sinner" is in the active. If a man is to be saved from influenza, he may be a patient. But if he is to be saved from forging, he must be not a patient but an impatient. He must be personally impatient with forgery. All moral reform must start in the active not the passive will.

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (38644)	3/18/1999 11:47:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 67261

Ok, Dwight. Since I have it handy, here's the Rev. Pilch's original discourse on the "left wing ad hominem". Which, as I mentioned elsewhere, lead me into an unfortunate, long running dialog with the esteemed Rev. I happen to support the death penalty and I also reject abortion, and while my doing so may appear logically inconsistent to you (though I hardly think it in fact is), your calling my belief hypocritical is to employ a typical leftist tactic-- no argument, merely the ad hominem. Now I happen to believe the well placed ad hominem a dandy thing, despite its potential fallaciousness; but the ad hominem used to argue a point in a context such as this, is a leftist tactic (hence my use of the term in association with you. The term is mine, used by me fallaciously, often in response to those who use the ad hominem to argue their positions /ex:. RR, homophobe, RW, bigot, fanatic, CS, etc). Typical liberal usages: "You think homosexuality a philosophically untenable perversion? Then you are a Right Wing Homophobic Religious Bigot. You think abortion necessarily destructive and philosophically untenable? Then you are a misogynist. You think a conspiracy exists to harm society? Then you have the paranoid style. You support the death penalty and yet reject abortion? Then you are a hypocrite." It is possible (indeed where I am concerned it is the fact) that in each of these cases a person can hold these views and yet not be a bigot, misogynist, paranoid, or a hypocrite. Message 6144148 And blah blah blah. Since you no doubt agree totally with the good Rev. on homosexuality, abortion, and the death penalty, I imagine you'd agree with him on the "leftist ad hominem" also. Perhaps it's a good Christian thing.