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.

Non-Tech : Who Really Pays Taxes? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michelino who wrote (412)	8/17/2000 6:50:37 PM
From: c.horn	Respond to of 666

LOL!!!! You've got no clue whatsoever dood.

To: Michelino who wrote (412)	8/17/2000 7:00:40 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 666

You obviously don't know presidential greatness when it is apparent to every thinking person. But enough about Reagan. Clinton lost his impeachment fight in the House and was found in contempt of court for his perjury and obstruction of justice. He has been fined and will be disbarred before he leaves office. After he leaves office, perhaps criminal justice will catch up to him. We can only hope. As for taxpayer funds expended, $50 million over four years is a small price to pay to assure an honest president in this republic. Compare that total to the bombs Clinton dropped on the pill factory to divert attention from the semen stained dress. If you are so concerned with public monies, perhaps you might want Clinton to repay the taxpayers the $8 million he wasted by denying the Monica charges under oath and to the American people for eight months.

To: Michelino who wrote (412)	8/17/2000 8:02:45 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 666

Except for a few right wing weirdos that to this very day refuse to let go of their hatred, all at the time knew Clinton would be acquitted. The trial was a waste of every taxpayers' money. The Starr investigation was an even bigger waste. If you have evidence that a certain person may have committed criminal actions, but you feel it is unlikely that he will be convicted if brought to trial would you (if you were in charge of making the decision) decide to investigate or would you feel that the low likelihood of conviction means that any investigation would likely be a waste, and so you would not investigate? Tim