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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (721)	8/25/1998 5:05:00 PM
From: j_b	Respond to of 67261

<<What then was the implication of those 2 questions>> I wasn't taking a position on either question. I just think it's important that a) the questions be asked, and b) that people that DO have an opinion really have thought about the issue. For example, for those people that think Starr went too far - where should he have drawn the line, and how could he tell when he got there, especially if the line gets drawn on the "wrong" side of the judicial mandate given to Starr by Reno. One of the questions I asked in an earlier post was - if Starr knew, absolutely, that Clinton was a serial murderer, but couldn't prove it in court, would he be justified in a fishing expedition to find a way to get rid of him. That's not as easy a question as it sounds, because it involves the ends justifying the means, something the feminists should now be familiar with as regards forwarding their agenda through Bill Clinton. For those who don't think Starr went too far - how far IS too far? How can you tell when it becomes personal/political? If you have thought out your position, you probably already have answers to the questions. If not, maybe you should spend more time discussing your position, especially with people who disagree with you - they force you to think things through.