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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (117845)	6/3/2005 1:49:10 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

Subversive? Seditious? I think you have the wrong words. <It was his choice to become subversive and seditious. I believe this is a clear case and should be referred to a federal grand jury without delay > All that happened was the other arms of government considered the situation and decided Nixon had to go. There was no sedition or subversion. The state not only remained intact, but was shown to be functioning. <arousing to action or rebellion [syn: incendiary, incitive, inflammatory, instigative, rabble-rousing] 2: in opposition to a civil authority or government [syn: insurgent, subversive]> There was no rebellion against government. There was action by government, namely the impeachment process. Nobody rebelled. No rabble was roused. No arms presented. < sub·ver·sive Intended or serving to subvert, especially intended to overthrow or undermine an established government: “Sex and creativity are often seen by dictators as subversive activities” (Erica Jong). n. One who advocates or is regarded as advocating subversion. adj : in opposition to a civil authority or government [syn: insurgent, seditious] n : a radical supporter of political or social revolution [syn: revolutionist, revolutionary, subverter] > UW, I think you are getting unduly excited. The guy is 91. Get a grip. There are more important things to concern yourself about than bureaucratic processes for how somebody 30 years ago who is now 91 should have handled a crime by his bosses. He seems to me to have done it just right. Cut the bureaucratic nonsense and take it to the people to decide. The representatives of the people [Congress] did decide. Mqurice

To: unclewest who wrote (117845)	6/3/2005 7:08:34 AM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

felt let down all those fbi agents who looked up to his leadership. He went against all principles to go the press vs take proper action and report his feelings to congress or a grand jury. The public look to our fbi and cia departments as our top security agents in this country and the second in command with tremendous experience has to go to a newspaper and hide in garages at night to give out information. It is just awful imo that we cannot feel our leaders of these great organizations cannot work within gov. to resolve issues. Rather once again we have the press saying we need confidential sources, to break out what is really happening in our gov. We cannot count on the system of gov. So are we again at the mercy of unnamed sources who may not be telling the truth are put in print by our nyt, etc. We need to make sure our system is open to gov employees who want to identify areas of concern for investigation without them feeling they will get punished by a higher authority.