SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Technology Stocks : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Dr. Id who wrote (16982)9/14/1998 11:52:00 AM
From: RetiredNow  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 77400
 
Bullshit Jeff. Those two cases are completely different. Clinton represents all that's become of our country. The ends justify the means. What's sick is that people seem to be saying that poor Clinton is getting a bad wrap and is being persecuted. Now I think it was in poor taste for Starr's report to have the level of detail it did. It would have been enough had he said that there is overwhelming physical and testimonial evidence that Clinton has had sex with Monica Lewinski and then go on to explain the impeachable offenses.

However, despite the unnecessary smear campaign, Clinton is still a cheat, a liar, and a manipulater. In two terms, he has managed to turn the greatest nation on earth into a laughing stock across the world. For people to be defending his behavior is an outrage and for our kids to have to watch this crap on TV in all its lascivious detail is unforgiveable.

The only good thing to come out of all this is the big win for the Internet as a public forum for national political debate.



To: Dr. Id who wrote (16982)9/14/1998 3:07:00 PM
From: red jinn  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 77400
 
jeff: this isn't the thread to do it on, but briefly, (1) i think the war powers act was unconstitutional and i'm not aware that clinton can claim that lying under oath is unconstitutional; (2) reagan didn't set up a secret govt, he or his aides - and it's not clear what he knew, and now we'll never know - ended up funneling money to groups resisting communism, which is not quite the same as using the power of the office to set a wonderful example for a 22-yr.-old intern or to try to get monica not to tell the truth (and vernon jordan's testimony seems to nail clinton on this point); (3) reagan didn't knowingly ask his friends to lie for him; (4) walsh spent 7 years on his investigation, spent more money, so far, than starr, got no jail time for any of his targets and no convictions - just plea bargains by people who couldn't afford to fight the endless resources of the independent cousel - (btw, i'm against the law itself), compared to starr who has the second highest number of convictions of any indep counsel, including a governor and an associate attorney general; (5) reagan voulnteered to testify twice and did so once i bleieve compared to clinton who said he would and didn't, who was asked 6 times to and finally did only under compulsion, and, finally, (6) reagan, against the advice of most of his advisors, managed to back gorbachev into a corner, knock the berlin wall down, and free millions of people who are now trying to learn how to be free after almost 3 genreations of slavery. i have no problem with how history will judge each of these presidents. regards, red jinn