|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Drop this Thread! Doesn't belong here.
Guy Tann wrote:
>
> Brooke
>
> Interestingly you don't quote the editors of that same newspaper, the
> bastion of liberalism in America, the New York Times, when they are calling
> for the President to resign. In fact, if you do a little more homework you
> will find that it's the liberal media leading the charge for resignation.
> Currently the count is 78 major newspapers calling for his resignation.
>
> Personally I'm very uncomfortable with this whole affair, and as my brother
> says, we could even admire the guy and his sex life in the Oval Office if he
> wasn't the President.
>
> What concerns me is the pattern of obfuscation that I see. The lying,
> coordination of witnesses, the cover-up, etc. It's this pattern that
> bothers me the most. The resurrection of Hillary's billing records in their
> private quarters in the White House, just as the Thompson Committee is due
> to wind down. The claim of ignorance when asked who hired that turkey
> Livingston, or whatever his name was who requested all of those FBI files.
> The use of the FBI, the IRS and the prosecutor's office to cover up the
> travelgate affair.
>
> In addition to the pattern of cover-up and lying, you really have to
> question the man's mental capacity. What could he possibly be thinking,
> knowing everybody was looking at his life under a microscope, when he
> allowed himself to enter this relationship with Lewinski??? You'll notice
> that I'm not blaming him, other than for a lapse of judgment. But if he is
> this reckless and uncaring, then I really question his ability to lead. And
> that brings me to my final point. He has lost the ability to lead this
> nation. He didn't start with a majority to begin with, but without
> respect, he's in deep do do.
>
> His poll numbers about how do you like Clinton's governing reflect the great
> economy as opposed to his ability to govern. Look at his personal approval
> ratings, etc.
>
> I don't blame Bill Clinton or even Congress here (even though it was a
> Democratic Congress that put this Special Prosecutor bill through and Bill
> signed it into law over the objections of the Republicans). I blame the
> steady decline in moral values of the American people. Our education system
> that's taught people that they really don't have to learn anything to get a
> social promotion into the next grade. A system where the teacher's unions
> would have us believe that we can solve these problems by throwing more
> money at the system, even though the Catholic school system provides a
> better education, overall, for half the cost (and no, I'm not Catholic <g>).
> We need to start rebuilding our own society, otherwise we're all in trouble
> here.
>
> When I was in college I took an advertising course. At one point we were
> studying bill boards and the professor said that you needed a line to get
> their attention (the public's) and then a line to keep it. His famous line
> was; "Hey you!" and the next line was "Yeah you, stupid!". That was the way
> he thought of when referring to the American people. I hate to admit it,
> but I've developed the same approach. Hey, you! Yeah you, stupid! We get
> what we deserve, and we've got Clinton, warts and all. Now I've got to
> worry about whether or not we can afford to impeach him. That moves us
> closer to a parliamentary type of system which I'm not in favor of....
>
> By the way, you might want to go back and reread the Federalist Papers.
> You'll find a better quote in there about what the framers of the
> Constitution had in mind regarding impeachment. I think it was also by
> Hamilton, but it might have been Madison (I'm old and senile so can be
> excused my memory lapses).
>
> Regards
>
> Guy
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Brookemail@xxxxxxx
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 10:19 AM
> > To: rtestes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: "The Seduction of a President" by Kenneth Starr
> >
> >
> > I have the greatest respect for your opinion, Richard. You're not only
> > knowledgeable on many subjects -- you're wise. You're absolutely
> > right that
> > the Metastock list is the wrong forum for political debate -- or
> > mud-slinging.
> > However, after reading all the notes attacking Clinton on the
> > basis of Starr's
> > lurid examination of his sex life, I felt compelled to speak out.
> >
> > I'm deeply troubled by the division in this country right now --
> > and by the
> > Republicans' efforts to bring down a freely and fairly elected president.
> >
> > In a recent article in the New York Times, sociologist Orlando
> > Patterson says
> > it well:
> >
> > "To the nonlawyer's mind, which holds the highest principle of
> > justice to be
> > fariness, Mr. Starr's expedient pursuit of the Lewinsky sex
> > matter after three
> > years in which he failed to find any wrongdoing by the President in the
> > Whitewater episode smacks of precisely the kind of prosecutorial
> > zealotry that
> > Hamilton most feared. If the personal life of the most powerful man in the
> > nation can be violated so wantonly by a Government-appointed
> > prosecutor, then
> > we are all at risk. ... Americans have traditionally trusted the courts to
> > stand as the last barricade against intrusions of this kind. But now it
> > appears that any determined opponent can use the legal system to
> > invade our
> > most intimate lives and that our prosecutors have almost
> > limitless powers to
> > entrap us and to violate the most fundamental element of our freedom."
> >
> > And: "The public's correct understanding of democracy parallels
> > its concern
> > with the preservation of individual liberty. This explains why
> > most Americans
> > still side with Mr. Clinton and against Mr. Starr. By objecting
> > to publication
> > of details of the President's sex life, Americans have
> > acknowledged that his
> > right to privacy justifies his attempt to conceal actions they
> > consider to be
> > his business and no one else's. The disingenuousness of the President's
> > legalistic definition of sex is justificed by the equally transparent
> > disingenuousness of Mr. Starr's tactic of using Mr. Clinton's relationship
> > with Monica Lewinsky as a way of trapping him in a falsehood."
> >
> > Now Rep. Henry J. Hyde, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, says
> > any efforts
> > to expose members of Congress to the same scrutiny applied to Clinton's
> > private life could lead to federal charges and imprisonment.
> >
> > This whole affair reminds one not of Watergate, but of McCarthyism.
> >
> > Brooke
> >
|