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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Liatris Spicata who wrote (12372)	5/13/1999 2:17:00 AM
From: PiMac	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Thanks for bringing that up, The "L" should have been written "l". It would've been to no good to draw attention to my negativity by a unilateral correction, so I waited. The insults are to both the liberal, again, small l, and the libertarian. I'd be happy to insult the religious right as well, but the context wasn't there. The 3 cover the major political world. It is the political philosophies I denigrate, not any Political Party or individual. I have often complimented all 3 as well, as each has valuable insight and approaches. That wasn't the attitude I was expressing. One level down from keyword, here's a sound bite example of where I was coming from: libs. are willing to countenance a morally bankrupt transaction on the basis of buyer beware. There is no expectation that society will ever improve, and so no effort or interest, in making that so. Libs. philosophy falls back on choice, or freedom, including bad choices from damaged people and structures that could have been made whole. The healthy, whose health is owed to many, flourish, while the weak, who weren't as lucky, are culled. This is self-serving at its height. Like a snake in the grass, who will strike from protected cover. A slimy snake who needn't even have a need to strike, because that is simply the unchangeable nature of the beast. You see, just as the fuzzy liberals expect government to solve our problems, so the libertarians also look to government as the solution: love / hate, cause / cure the difference is perspective, not the object. As to Harry, taking state money was wrong, so he didn't, and that is admirable. Other parties are desperate for that state money, because their philosophies have no problem with state money. They think their agenda worthwhile, and they're society good, and this is how society works. Were the first to fault the 2nd as morally unfounded it is only because my value is different. It is morally correct to the man who does the action, though anathema to the critic. There is no issue of character or immorality or not in either person. The philosophies are in discord; the adherents' actions are not understandable to another philosophy, but are internally consistent. The more pure of character a libertarian or a liberal is, the more <insult> he is to those outside his group, those with different values It is with unsubstantiated insults like my earlier that I am now afforded an opportunity to raise a subject with which I remain uncomfortable, just as in a similar situation, Clinton told a lie in order to get another opinion on a subject he found unfinished. [or he could have been keeping a dirty little secret from discovery, depending on more information and what you want to believe.]