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 : Should Clinton resign? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mrknowitall who wrote (428)	9/18/1998 8:38:00 PM
From: cool	Respond to of 567

"Sancticy of the seal of the secrecy of the court" that was a well worded statement--- It has been abused by the Republicans, secret grand jury testimony made public, this is truly a the worst abuse of our judicial system I can recall. Worst yet no checks and balances exist. Clinton can be impeached, the Republican Judiciary committee can defile the system behind closed doors and come out smiling.

To: mrknowitall who wrote (428)	9/19/1998 4:51:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 567

Oh, spare me the resentment experience. You've got a remarkable number of postings on the subject to be getting all sanctimonious about it. All of them balanced and objective, I'm sure. As for smearing too much, that's an even bigger joke. Anyway, I didn't say that all of the opposition was "cut of the same cloth". I say, find me an honest voice on the other side. Do you perhaps consider yourself an honest voice? Newt? Henry Hyde? Ken Starr, he of the "secret" grand jury proceedings? Remember Whitewater? Which is what Ken Starr's inquisition spun its wheels on for 4 years, without being able to pin anything on Bill? Finally, after 4 years, some Bush holdover with an axe to grind gives him something totally unrelated, and it's the crime of the century. Bletch. Cheers, Dan.

To: mrknowitall who wrote (428)	9/19/1998 9:00:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 567

Hey, mrknowitall, I missed the second substantive portion of your message: To me, that's as fundamentally repugnant as saying all Germans were Nazis or that all white people are racists. It is a weak point from which to engage in a substantive debate. I see you are a student of cheesy high school debate tricks. To me, it looks like you have a lot of time to spend spamming every political group here with a certain, highly restricted, point of view. Your own little fertile field, as it were. But, I'm sure, you're objective in all this, and everyone on the other side is biased. You and Ken Starr, seekers after the truth. Enjoy your substantive debate. Cheers, Dan.