|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Well, George as you saw it did go to the list, so I will answer there. I
deal in generalities because it is the only way you can address complex
issues in this arena. My education is in Political Science, I have done and
continue to do my homework. I have read everything I can get my hands on
about clinton, all court papers that have been released. And when reports
are made on his other transgressions, as promised in the zippergate report,
I will read them to.
Since Politics has and continues to be a large driving force in my life, I
take it very seriously. I will speak out when I hear distortions. Bringing
in Hitler,KKK, etc into an argument held no logic and it started with a
blatant "Republicans have no program, no policy, and no plans for dealing
with our domestic, economic, military, and foreign policy problems." George
I hope you feel that those generalizations and distortions need the same
criticism.
I have decided long ago from study what political and social precepts I
would have. Most are in total opposition to the left wing who I consider to
have programs that only carried us to a path of statism, where man's life
and work belong to the state. I would wear the title of Right wing
capitalist with pride and I stay opposed to the left/liberal wing in all
their programs and ideas.
I hope I do contribute to the TA discussions, I believe in sharing
knowledge, what little I have. Thank you for that aspect of your note.
Richard Estes
-----Original Message-----
From: George Van Noy <jorxj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: "The Seduction of a President" by Kenneth Starr
>Richard,
>
>This is not posted to the list for obvious reasons.
>
>I greatly admire you.
>
>You write well. You usually make cogent arguments. You certainly know far
>more about investing than I do. And I trust you to be consistent and
>logicial.
>
>I don't mind that I disagree with you strongly in politics. The whole
>point, I think, of a democracy is that we vote because we understand that
>there can be disagreements.
>
>However. Just for your information. I'm 58 years old and have MY
lifetime
>of experience and study to work with. Your statements about the Clinton
>debacle don't match up with my analysis. I don't need to go into the
>reasons. Suffice to say, I've done my homework. I'm not saying you
>haven't, far from it. I believe you, of all people have.
>
>The point is this: isn't there some way for people like you, and like me,
>for that matter, to come to the point where we can have a relatively civil
>argument without giving the opposition absolutely no room to stand on?
>
>You are extremely general in your criticisms of the political left, I
>probably know the details of course, and the details I've heard don't
>convince me. So how are we to have a sane political society if each side
>keeps hurling glittering generalities at the other?
>
>Within the past 10 years in modern theories of the Big Bang, controversy
>arose over whether the red shift really WAS due to expansion of the
>universe. Their were some very convincing arguments against expansion, and
>some convincing alternatives. The discussion is still alive, but most now
>agree that expansion is true. During the height of the arguments, it is
>true that many egotistic positions and ad hominem arguments were used.
>Usually, however, most of the parties involved tried to present their
>rational ideas and let others make up their own minds.
>
>Your statements about Clinton lying about everything remind me of myself
>stating the same thing about Nixon, Reagan and Bush, and Johnson also. I
>didn't write these statements, I said them in social conversation, only
>sometimes for the purpose of conversation, usually to silence the other. I
>have very good reasons for thinking these men were liars, and I don't want
>to open such a conversation with you. Unless we had a lot of time and were
>facing each other in person, I just don't see the point.
>
>I again ask you, if you're going to publicly assert your views on this
list,
>a list that you yourself said had seen enough of this, couldn't you try to
>state them in such a way that you have SOME respect for the opposition?
>
>Of course, if you have NO respect for opposing viewpoints, then I've
misread
>you. If you think a healthy society is composed of all right wing
>Republicans, or at least a huge majority of them, then this nation is truly
>in deep trouble. Not because of the folly of one or a handful of leaders,
>but because the discourse of ideas can not take place. I hope that I've
not
>misread you.
>
>In any case, I want to repeat, I've always felt privileged to read your
>investing ideas, and have usually enjoyed to hear your political views,
>however much I disagree.
>
>With respect,
>
>
>
>George Van Noy
>jorxj@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Richard Estes <rtestes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 5:12 PM
>Subject: Re: "The Seduction of a President" by Kenneth Starr
>
>
>>I wondered, who the polls were calling. Now I know. We shouldn't take up
>any
>>more space here. But I would note two things if Clinton and others lied in
>>whitewater, filegate, travelgate, and fundsgate like they did in
>Zippergate.
>>It would be very hard to bring forward, what anyone could see was crooked
>>actions on their part. The man has lied all his life, he has never uttered
>>the truth about anything, period.
>>
>>Zippergate was turned over to Starr by AG Reno and a three judge panel.
>When
>>the judges in the phoney appeals cases by clinton saw the evidence, they
>>decided in Starr's favor.
>>
>>No, Republicans have no plans to increase the socialist aspects of our
>>government. That is why I like them, I believe in capitalism.
>>
>>Richard Estes
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Lionel Issen <lissen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; EMail List
FastTrack
>><fasttrack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Al Angle <jangle@xxxxxxxx>; John Aupperle
>><JAupp@xxxxxxx>; Scott Brandau <sbrandau@xxxxxxxx>; Stan Ellison
>><BSEllison@xxxxxxx>; Clem Gagne <clemray@xxxxxxx>; Mike Hasket
>><ellmic1@xxxxxxxx>; Pamela E. Hinchey <spamette@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mike
>Hodges
>><mwhod@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Marketspace Financial <marketspac@xxxxxxx>; Don
>>Potter <djp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Andy Pracht <pracht@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Gene
>>Schwartz <travel1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Cc: Al Angle <jangle@xxxxxxxx>; John Aupperle <JAupp@xxxxxxx>; Scott
>Brandau
>><sbrandau@xxxxxxxx>; Stan Ellison <BSEllison@xxxxxxx>; Clem Gagne
>><clemray@xxxxxxx>; Mike Hasket <ellmic1@xxxxxxxx>; Pamela E. Hinchey
>><spamette@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mike Hodges <mwhod@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
>Marketspace
>>Financial <marketspac@xxxxxxx>; Don Potter <djp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
>Andy
>>Pracht <pracht@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Gene Schwartz <travel1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
>Frank
>>Tarr, OD <FTARR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 4:37 PM
>>Subject: Re: "The Seduction of a President" by Kenneth Starr
>>
>>
>>>Bill:
>>>
>>>On the one hand you have a point or two.
>>>
>>>On the other hand the Republicans have no program, no policy, and no
plans
>>>for dealing with our domestic, economic, military, and foreign policy
>>>problems.
>>>
>>>This "lets get Clinton for screwing around" is like Hitler blaming the
>>Jews,
>>>Stalin blaming the capitalists, the KKK blaming Blacks, Jews, and
>>Hispanics,
>>>the Ayatollah blaming the Americans.. need I go on. Finding a scapegoat
>>>beats thinking and working to solve our problems each and every time.
>>>
>>>The investigation started with Whitewater, nothing was found. So we did
>>>find that Clinton has his brains hanging out. Incidentally one of our
>>most
>>>lecherous presidents was a republican, so what.
>>>
>>>This so-called investigation and report has made us the laughing stock of
>>>the world and has seriously weakened our influence and ability to
>influence
>>>events. It will also weaken the ability and power of presidents in the
>>>future, no matter what party they belong to.
>>>
>>>Kenneth Starr has done his party and our country a great diservice.
>>>
>>>Lionel
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Bill Saxon <bsaxon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>To: EMail List FastTrack <fasttrack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; EMail List Metastock
>>><metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Al Angle <jangle@xxxxxxxx>; John Aupperle
>>><JAupp@xxxxxxx>; Scott Brandau <sbrandau@xxxxxxxx>; Stan Ellison
>>><BSEllison@xxxxxxx>; Clem Gagne <clemray@xxxxxxx>; Mike Hasket
>>><ellmic1@xxxxxxxx>; Pamela E. Hinchey <spamette@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mike
>>Hodges
>>><mwhod@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Marketspace Financial <marketspac@xxxxxxx>; Don
>>>Potter <djp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Andy Pracht <pracht@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
Gene
>>>Schwartz <travel1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>Cc: Al Angle <jangle@xxxxxxxx>; John Aupperle <JAupp@xxxxxxx>; Scott
>>Brandau
>>><sbrandau@xxxxxxxx>; Stan Ellison <BSEllison@xxxxxxx>; Clem Gagne
>>><clemray@xxxxxxx>; Mike Hasket <ellmic1@xxxxxxxx>; Pamela E. Hinchey
>>><spamette@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mike Hodges <mwhod@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
>>Marketspace
>>>Financial <marketspac@xxxxxxx>; Don Potter <djp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
>>Andy
>>>Pracht <pracht@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Gene Schwartz <travel1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
>>Frank
>>>Tarr, OD <FTARR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 1:14 PM
>>>Subject: "The Seduction of a President" by Kenneth Starr
>>>
>>>
>>>>My wife, who grabbed this best seller from my hands before I had a
chance
>>>to
>>>>read it, made this observation. I tend to agree with her. Like most
>>women
>>>she
>>>>is quite intuitive. I do not think that Monica is the poor little
intern
>>>>intimidated by a President who wielded his power and influence to have
>his
>>>way
>>>>with her. To me (and my wife) she is an attractive young lady who by
her
>>>own
>>>>account seduced a relatively old fool who used the wrong head to think
>>>with.
>>>>
>>>>I feel sorry for the man but I am not sure I want him as Commander in
>>>Chief.
>>>>Not because of the perjury but because of the lack of good sense. The
>>>>interesting thing is that with all the mulling over by the press I have
>>>heard no
>>>>one put forth this observation. When I carefully read the details of
the
>>>>encounters this conclusion seems reasonable and likely.
>>>>Any opinions??
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|