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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Roger's 1998 Short Picks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: majormember who wrote (13685)	9/12/1998 2:24:00 PM
From: vegetarian	Respond to of 18691

>>let us ALL start moving back towards building a great America.<< That is the crux of the mater; can America thrive with him in the white house after he has lost trust and what is known about his personal character? will the rest of the world trust American leadership? will the amercians trust their own leadership with him at the helm? Once he is known to have been a blatant liar, one can interpret that he was smart enough to have not left any traces behind that could indict him in his other affairs, but got caught in this one just because of the dress that was preserved; if that did not happen it is unlikely he would have confessed. If he got caught in every incidence and left as concrete proof as the Monica affair for investigators like Starr to use, then one could only say that he is a stupid person, but we all know stupid people do not become American presidents; so it is not a reasonable expectation to have Starr come out with indictions in all alleged cases; one case is good enough (to disprove a theorem you need only one counter example). It is not an easy job to investigate a popular incumbent president and come out with concrete case against him, because the odds are always likely to be in president's favor. Considering this, I think Starr has done a really good job at his findings and in disseminating the information.

To: majormember who wrote (13685)	9/12/1998 2:25:00 PM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18691

Skane, he lied under oath. He lied straight to the American people's face when he thought it was a matter of he said, she said. If Clinton were the CEO of a publicly traded company I would be ready to short it. Perhaps I will think of him as such, and short SPY. "yet you want him totally and absolutely destroyed." When did I say that? Why do you assume that? It's just like a liberal apologist to accuse anyone who has the nerve to question their minimization of this serious situation of having evil intentions. If you think you can trust someone who has lied over and over that's fine. I do not. But it is disingenuous to suggest that one need to be perfect in order to see through Clinton's lies. "Since you never liked him to begin with, it may be hard to find ANY redeeming qualities about him, but look at the facts." That's a good strategy, just assume facts not in evidence. You didn't go to the White House school of spin doctoring, did you? Why do you assume that because I noticed that he bald faced lied to the public that I never liked him to begin with? "Where are the indictments over WhiteWater or lies over any other matter besides sex??.....there are NONE." Twaddle. There have been 43 convictions resulting from Starr's investigation. "Starr has spent years and Millions investigating Clinton and could not find ANY lies, or misbehavior on anything besides him diddling some girl."" More accurately you mean that he couldn't prove it because Clinton covered his tracks well. I do like the way the Clinton apologists are wont to point out how much money has been spent in the investigation, but never point out how much the stonewalling by the President contributed to those costs. Barb

To: majormember who wrote (13685)	9/12/1998 9:13:00 PM
From: BDR	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18691

<<Where are the indictments over WhiteWater or lies over any other matter besides sex??.....there are NONE.>> I get very irritated with the Clinton apologists insistence that all this money was spent and the result is just this report with no indictment of the Clintons to show for it. First of all I am not sure we should expect Starr to indict the President. I am not an expert on the law relating to the Special Prosecutor but my understanding is that, with regard to the President, the Special Prosecutor's charge is to investigate the activity in question and then report to Congress. It is Congress's job then to weigh the evidence, interrogate witnesses and decide whether impeachment is appropriate. This is what we now see happening. I believe the Special Prosecutor can indict but I gather the legal precedent for this is lacking. Legal Eagles help me out. So where are the indictments? Where are the convictions? I believe this link still will show you some. etherzone.com Now granted only a minority of those listed were convicted as a result of activity related to Whitewater. All that proves to me is that F.O.B.'s (felons of Bill) are perfectly capable of landing in jail without help from Starr.