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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (61270)	10/1/1999 9:59:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

What Zolt said was that Posner did not personally desire to get rid of Clinton, but argued there were grounds to do it. My construction of that was that he denied being a "Clinton hater", but made the dispassionate case for removal, perhaps setting forth pragmatic considerations on the other side. In other words, I thought at most it indicated ambivalence.....

To: jlallen who wrote (61270)	10/1/1999 10:31:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

The review stated that Posner never says which way he would have voted on removal - but that he comes down strongly that the grounds were there for Clinton's impeachment and removal. When I stated that Posner did not desire Clinton's removal, I was reflecting Posner's belief that Clinton has not been much more than an caretaker, perhaps unwilling, of the Reaganism. I guess I should have qualified my statement to "removal at the outset". While that may be true policy-wise, I understand your point that Clinton is a criminal and that his behavior should not be condoned. Some people, like Sullivan, think impeachment served that purpose, taking away Clinton's "moral" authority to govern - let's face it, Clinton has been a lame duck ever since. Unlike Sullivan, I believe that Posner, though not desiring Clinton's removal at the outset, had set forth such strong arguments that impeachment and removal were Constitutionally valid that he would have voted for removal in the end, had he a vote.

To: jlallen who wrote (61270)	10/1/1999 11:35:00 AM
From: Les H	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 67261

PBS Changes Name to DPBS The Public Broadcast System today announced that they are changing their name to the Democratic Party Broadcast System (DPBS). The announcement comes just two weeks after PBS Chief, Ervin S. Duggan, resigned amid rumors that PBS was using the DNC's direct mailing list for donor solicitation. PBS decided to change its name at the urging of Richard Moorehead. Moorehead is a Children's Television Producer, Gay Rights activist and creator of an upcoming 'Teletubbies' series designed to help pre-schoolers discover their homosexuality. Said Moorehead, "PBS needs to come out of the closet and stop pretending to be something that it isn't. Everyone knows that PBS has an agenda. Rather than deny it, we need to embrace it. " At today's press conference a PBS spokeswoman said, "The new name does not reflect a new alliance to the liberal left-wing of American politics but rather affirms a camaraderie that has been there from the beginning."