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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Douglas V. Fant who wrote (17018)	1/26/1998 12:29:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Doug, I think you are probably right about RELATIONS between Clinton and the FBI--not particularly friendly. Ditto Clinton and the Secret Service--do you remember the stink at the begining of his first term, when reports were apparently leaked out that Hillary allegedly used a lot of profanities, and threw lamps and such at her husband? I believe the Secret Service may have been involved in those. And there seems to be some leaking at the moment that it may have been a Secret Service person who allegedly discovered Clinton and Monica in a "private" moment in the White House theatre. FBI and Secret Service "culture" seems to be much more conservative and traditionally moral than the president may be, and perhaps there is enough culture shock so that these agencies are not particularly loyal to--or impressed by--Billy. However, I think one of the things that is continually pushed into the background in this investigation is that the president's own attorney general authorized a criminal sting operation on him, approved by that panel of three federal judges. One would at least think that there was substantial evidence presented to them, or am I possibly wrong here? In that light, the president's very firm denials this morning are intriguing, to say the least. What do you think?

To: Douglas V. Fant who wrote (17018)	1/26/1998 1:09:00 PM
From: Daniel W. Koehler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

The 10th and 14th amendments have been gutted, the 5th is (Takings' clause) is being winked at, the 2th Amendment is under siege. If the 1st Amendment is ever overthrown, then we will have thrown our country away. The privacy issue is under siege by this wiretap issue. Not to mention encryption. The internet may be the Rubicon for this. Douglas, as far as private legal actions go, well, that just an issue where you and I disagree, my friend. As a Libertarian I am opposed a priori to any abridgement of the rights of citizens vis a vis our public servants simply because IMO anything that strengthen the state ultimately will weaken the individual. If an official is given special treatment over any of us, over time, supporters of statism will, via incrementalism, turn this loophole into legal dogma. Incrementalism is the principle of the Fabian Society in Britain used to overthrow classical laissez faire liberalism and supplant with the socialist miasma they have now. To use a plainer example, government's incremental minor coercions against its citizens are analogous to boiling a frog. You simply don't throw a frog in to boiling water - it will jump out slightly scalded. Rather, you let the frog languish in tepid water and gradually increase the temperature. By the time the water is boiling, the frog is too enervated and lulled into complacency by the comfort of the warm bath to save itself from boiling. Just MHO. Regards, Daniel