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: PiMac who wrote (12465)	5/14/1999 3:02:00 AM
From: Bob Lao-Tse	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Your categories are quite broad, but they do serve a purpose, and I do agree that Clinton is at least the most trash President. I don't think he was by any stretch the first (LBJ springs quickly to mind) but that's no matter. I of course differ with your interpretation of Clinton's flaws and the reactions to him. I believe that his flaws are incredibly dangerous and harmful and have led to his being the worst presidency at least of the 20th century, and that the negative reactions to him are wholly justified while the positive ones misguided. He does have an agenda, but it's not an agenda in the sense that, say, Reagan or Carter had agendas. You labelled Carter a roller, I assume that Reagan would be one too. Their agendas were all wrapped up in their values and their perceptions of the world, and they did actively pursue them. But Clinton's agenda is, in many respects, far more threatening. His agenda is solely and completely the aggrandizement of Bill Clinton. His policies have mostly been weakly introduced and pursued because he doesn't particularly believe in them. The only thing that matters to him is getting elected. His entire life has been devoted to the pursuit of elected office, with the eventual goal of the presidency. You imply that he doesn't care enough about money to commit treasonous acts, and to a point I agree with you. I would assume that personally, Bill Clinton doesn't care that much how much money he has, and that it genuinely isn't that important to him. However, in the modern world at least, money equals votes, and Bill Clinton would sell his own mother for votes. Note that the apparently illegal contributions didn't go to Bill Clinton, they went to his campaign. The money in question wasn't for him, it was for the campaign. For votes. For the only thing that really matters to Clinton. -BLT

To: PiMac who wrote (12465)	5/14/1999 8:00:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

Pi, whether or not your list is exhaustive, it is amusing, and it is certainly true to say that Clinton is the closest thing to trash we have had in the White House for a long time. The questions are, is that an inconsequential fact (i.e., just a matter of taste), and does the fact that trash thinks nothing of looking the other way if it is to his advantage mean that he is not to be held to account? You characterzize the apology business as a "matter of style", but the style reflects the sincerity of the remorse, and thus the character of the man. Even were it hypocritical, at least it would uphold the underlying values involved. Instead, we have let it slide, to some degree, only to have him characterize it, in the aftermath, as something about which he feels little shame, and as a persecution. By doing so, he has trashed our values and institutions, which can never be trivial. On the other, a man who abets a bank robbery with the rationalization that he was only paid to be the lookout is still part of the gang....