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.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: melinda abplanalp who wrote (12592)	9/17/1998 5:14:00 PM
From: DScottD	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

Just being a little sarcastic there. Nothing's unfair after last Friday. Remember when Lloyd Benson told Quayle he was no JFK? That takes on entirely new meaning these days. Of course, Quayle will have to explain that little statue he bought on one of his trips to S. America while he was VP.

To: melinda abplanalp who wrote (12592)	9/20/1998 12:31:00 PM
From: Rambi	Respond to of 71178

Good morning, Melinda, Last night we went to dinner with some friends. Lots of chardonnay and incredible food. Anyway, we spent very little time on Clinton, but Hyde came up-and the thought of how dreary it's going to be if we have to endure descriptions of everyone's big and little mistakes or secrets. And I was thinking this morning after reading your post that there are two reasons I don't think it should: one because it's irrelevant to the impeachable charges that Clinton faces and two, when Hyde had his affair, he was not the president of the United States and it was thirty years ago. Also, this is a legal procedure and within that context the moral standards of the judge,attorneys, and juries aren't the issue, only whether the defendant did indeed commit the offense. Of course, I'm not a lawyer and could be wrong about all this, but those were my thoughts on your post. I don't really see this as a judging of Clinton's sexual behavior which the American people had already chosen to ignore at the time of his election. I do think that his defenders are trying to turn it into that because it really obscures the true issues. It does remind me of how we deal with profanity here at home. Hypocritical it may seem, but we think it's realistic. I've heard my child in the dugout with his friends, or sometimes in our den when they didn't know I was wandering by, and their language is ---colorful. They also know if they use that language in the presence of adults, they're in trouble. It's a question of appropriateness. If I heard one say shit to his teammates after striking out, I wouldn't say a word. If I get a call from the school that he told a teacher to go to hell, he'd be dead. And they understand what that means. They have respect for others, for institutions, for situations. Clinton didn't seem to get the difference. And then he tried to get others to lie, to cheat, to cover and in the process may have committed impeachable offenses. These are the issues, not how many other men in the world have committed adultery. And now, whether he was a great president or a lousy one, he has lost the ability to be one effectively. All that said, I see absolutely no reason for the public dissemination of these reports; I share your indignation about that. And I'm a little unclear about the reasons, a legal question I have for DScott, whom I will now address.