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 : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jack Clarke who wrote (3607)	1/30/1998 6:28:00 AM
From: Jack Clarke	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20981

FWIW, one respected writer and newsletter publisher (Rick Ackerman, SF Examiner, rick@vval.com), and no FOB, presents the possibility that it is Ms. Lewinsky who is lying, and that our loveable lug of a president is for once actually innocent of wrongdoing. This dashes my hopes that we might all be treated to the TV image of Mr. Clinton, biting lip and feeling our pain, waving goodbye from the helicopter on the White House lawn. Again I am flabbergasted at how this guy can beguile a majority of the public (especially women) and get them to overlook his many real travesties. Maybe I'm jealous, because I could never get away with it. Sadly, the markets seem to agree that he will slip out of this predicament as he has from all the ones in the past. Only in America. Jack

To: Jack Clarke who wrote (3607)	1/30/1998 2:47:00 PM
From: Dean Wilson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Jack you wrote, <<Third party anyone?>> And I couldn't help but hear echoes of wisdom emanating once again from the Framers of our Constitution. Your profile says you enjoy history and philosopy, so you might enjoy a passage from Madison's Federalist Paper No. 51: "It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers; but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a commmon interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: . . ." [my comment--he argues against the first method, alluding to what kings and dictators have tried] ". . . the other by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens, as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole, very improbable, if not impracticable." " . . . [this] second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States, Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as for the religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. . . ." <<Third party anyone?>> How 'bout a fourth, fifth, sixth.... LET THE PARTIES BEGIN!!! d.