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.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gerald Walls who wrote (10862)	9/21/1998 3:37:00 AM
From: ed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

I think you miss the point here. The love story between the president and his lover is a private matter , and should be resolved between the president and his family privately. Mr. Ken Starr should not involved in this investigation in the first place. By investigating , and put all the private matters into the public domain, he had violated the basic rule , that is everyone has the right to keep his privacy as long as it is not a criminal act,( this case is quite different than the case of Watergate) which include the president. We all know that President did not commit a crime by having love story with a woman besides his wife, the worst we can say about the president is that he is not loyal to his wife, which had nothing to do whether he is a good president or a bad one. Say ,you have a relation with another woman, should the medias investigate it and put all the stories into the public? Or should your friends investigate it and write a story about it on the newspaper ? Or should the court investigate it and announce that by having a relation with another woman you have committed a crime ? Or should you resolve this family issue privately between you and your wife ? Anyway, the law did not say have a relation with another woman besides your wife is a crime, especially , both sides did it on a voluntary base !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What is most ironical is that the man who was assigned to judge this case is a man who had a love story with a married women 30 years ago, and what was worst is that this man told his lover that he was not married at that time, and actually he was, as a result a family was destroyed. What a double standard conducted by this congress !!!!!!!!

To: Gerald Walls who wrote (10862)	9/21/1998 5:02:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

OT: So, partisan hacks Ed Meese and Dick Thornberg disagree that Ken Starr is a partisan hack. I wouldn't comment on the others without seeing the full article, rather than some selective quotes. I also wouldn't want to defend Clinton on these matters, he messed up. But I think there's some merit in exploring the context he messed up in. Ken Starr had some involvement in the Paula Jones suit, along with a collection of other partisan hacks and right-wing foundations. One thing I would agree with: Judge Griffin Bell, AG under President Carter: "My interest in the matter is the rule of law. It's the basis of all business and national life. It's one of the hallmarks of this nation. We are all ruled by it." "We have a new thing in the United States when we start trying the prosecutor. And we are deciding by polls whether a prosecutor can go forward with his investigation. We'll soon let off the privileged or anybody who can run a spin machine." Of course, the Rule of Law has to be respected by the prosecutor also. Like, with respect to "secret" grand jury proceedings. And a little bit of on topic comment- I find it interesting that you seem to approve of the Rule of Law, and prosecutorial discretion, in this particular context, but in another context . . . (quoting Beared One) My guess is that, as in criminal law, the number one question a prosecutor asks when deciding whether or not to pursue a case is: Is there a clear victim and is anyone complaining? Ha ha! It's "How many headlines will it get and how will it help my (or my superiors') political aspirations." Don't forget that at the state level Attorney General is an elected position and at the federal level it's a job held by an appointed political hack. (from Message 5690590, post 10580) Oh my. Is a political hack somehow different than a partisan hack? Is someone appointed by a judge under direction of Jessie Helms and Lauch Faircloth somehow better than someone appointed by the President? In the local context, who's running the premier spin machine? "Microsoft must be free to intimidate, er, imitate, I mean, integrate, that is, innovate! Yeah, innovate, that's it, and we must be free to keep others from doing that too, in an innovative fashion of course." The hobgoblin is howling in my small mind again. Cheers, Dan.