SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (12126)4/5/1999 10:58:00 PM
From: Broken_Clock  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 13994
 
<<I don't always agree with his view points due to my Republicanism
versus his Libertarianism, but usually he is "right-on" especially regarding Clinton.>>

You talking to me again Darrell? -vbg-

I'll give you a prime example of rigged "politcal correctness" Bill Maher. He always has three knee jerk liberals, himself and one conservative on the show. If they can't outwit the conservative(I haven't seen it done), they will engage in character assassination or some other "shout down" tactic to gain the advantage.
Maher is one sick dude.



To: Catfish who wrote (12126)4/7/1999 7:53:00 AM
From: Liatris Spicata  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 13994
 
arrell- OT

RE: Your Republicanism:

Your recent posting of the article "How Clinton Created the Serb War" was indeed interesting. You are right to be suspicious of the economic motivations of the US government- particularly this one, headed as it is by a gladhanding chronic liar.

Unfortunately, you fail to see the larger picture. For example, in the May issue of Reason magazine (see www.reason.com), Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) relates the following incident.

<<For instance, last year with the highway bill, a called and said, "You have $34 for your district: tell us how you want to spend it." To me, that sounded like we were getting the $34 million we paid into the system back, so I told them what our priorities were. The vote came up, and I voted against the bill because it was breaking the budget. When the conference bill came out, the money for my district was removed, except for maybe $6 million. So, I lost the [$28 million] bonus I could have gotten for voting for the bill. That's sort of a legislative line-item veto that committee chairmen have. That's the way the presidential line-item veto would have worked too- not to reduce spending, but to pressure politicians into spending more. Your projects will be deleted if you don't vote for more spending.>>

The "art" of government- particularly the spending of other people's money collected in a coercive manner- is inherently a sleazy business. It would be difficult for a person of integrity to remain so if he or she served in government. That is part of the reason why government itself should be stripped to its barest essentials. I don't agree with those who claim there isn't a dime worth of difference between REpublicans and Democrats- the latter are able to do more harm- but they are both happy to partake of a pretty smelly process. Clinton simply represents the acme of sleaze and deceit such a system promotes.

The only national political party that really wants to reduce government is the Libertarian Party. Those interested in reducing government and its pernicious influence on American society should look there, not to the Republicans.

Larry