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: lazarre who wrote (17100)	7/20/1998 4:39:00 PM
From: Catfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

lazzare, As an attorney, I'd think you'd have more concern for the attempt at dismantling the Bill of Rights let alone the reversal by other means of two Presidential Elections. lazzare, you still don't get it do you??? Obviously, you think that Clinton has done nothing wrong, or you are so blinded by your misguided ideology that the man could commit the most heinous crime thinkable and you would still believe he should remain in power. You stated that you are reading "some" of the items that I have posted to you, but obviously you are not learning. Tell me, what do you think is so great about Clinton that everyone should simply ignore the misdeeds of him, his party, and his administration? I am looking forward to your response.

To: lazarre who wrote (17100)	7/20/1998 4:53:00 PM
From: Rick Slemmer	Respond to of 20981

Of course, everyone deplores that behavior along with all the other allegations which has proven to be nothing but a $40M+ assumption that has no end in sight. As a conservative, I'd think you'd be outraged by this patent misappropriation of funds. Oh, we're outraged, all right. But $40 million (if indeed that figure is correct, and I have only seen it attributed to James Carville) has produced a number of Clinton Administration indictments, convictions, and resignations resulting from criminal conduct. For a refresher course, please click here: etherzone.com As a liberal concerned with the crime rate (it is for the children), you should be outraged by the conduct of those in the Democratic leadership who continue to lie about (and cover up) their crimes. RS

To: lazarre who wrote (17100)	7/20/1998 5:57:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

I would be very worried about violation of the Bill of Rights if you would show me where it's being violated. I do hate the expenditure of funds. If Clinton had told the truth up front, and fulfilled his promise to tell the public the whole truth, there would have been no need for a special prosecutor at all. The question is, should a sitting president be able to conceal indictable offenses from the public by trying to make the investigation prohibitively expensive? If stonewalling and obfuscation are accepted as appropriate Presidential tools to defeat a lawfully constituted inquiry because it becomes too expensive to maintain, it's Katie bar the door.

To: lazarre who wrote (17100)	7/20/1998 6:08:00 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 20981

Lazarre: You continue to maintain the fiction that something must be proven in a Court of law before it becomes fact. There is a difference between what common sense tells you must have happened and the legal standard which must be met to prove criminal wrongdoing. How do you explain OJ? How can you seriously doubt what Clinton was doing with Lewinski? Why hasn't the President come forward and given us all an explanation as he promised to do sooner rather than later? Why has the President refused to testify on his own behalf on five occasions? Why has he exerted all those privileges? Why has the discovery of documents been so bogged down? Have you compared his actions in cooperating with say for instance those of Jimmy Carter who also was investigated in his administration? Does all the stonewalling, spin, etc. etc. belie the behavior of an "innocent" man. I'd also like to know exactly what parts of the Bill of Rights are being dismantled, by whom and in what manner. As far as I know no one has contested the validity of the last two elections. The matter at hand is whether the person who was elected is fit and has upheld his duty to the country and the Constitution and laws of the US. The man is a disgrace to the office and the country we all love. If Starr has the goods he should be impeached. If not he should stay but certainly if the legal standard can not be met, he has already been shown for what he is. JLA

To: lazarre who wrote (17100)	7/21/1998 5:41:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 20981

>> Of course, everyone deplores that behavior along with all the other allegations which has proven to be nothing but a $40M+ assumption that has no end in sight. As a conservative, I'd think you'd be outraged by this patent misappropriation of funds. We are, but unlike you we recognize that Clinton's behaviour is solely responsible for that expenditure. We are also outraged that he is illegally using government attorneys and US taxpayer money for his private criminal defense. >> As an attorney, I'd think you'd have more concern for the attempt at dismantling the Bill of Rights .. We are outraged at Clinton's and his cronies' almost daily assaults on our Constitutional rights, including, but not limited to the Bill of Rights. >>let alone the reversal by other means of two Presidential Elections. Laughable. Winning elections does not give someone carte blanche to run amok. We just want him to obey the law and give at least lip service to his oath of office. We elect presidents, we do not install monarchs. You object that people expect Clinton to obey the Constitution and be held to the same standard as other presidents. True enough, Clinton did win two minority elections but those came without mandates and certainly do not in any way mean that the other two branches of the Federal government should roll over and not use their power to object to his illegal and unethical activities.