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 (10937)	9/23/1998 2:41:00 AM
From: ed	Respond to of 74651

Whom will you nominate to be the candidates of the greatest lovers of 1998 ?

To: Gerald Walls who wrote (10937)	9/23/1998 2:50:00 AM
From: ed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Be careful, if this Ken Starr stuff continues its way, the congress may pass a law that people who do not believe in GOD are criminals; or the presidents who are not good fathers should face the impeachment. If most people feel so , even it is a feeling then it is the rightful thing. Do not forget the law is to serve the majority of the people. Of course, if this is a police state, then the minority make the decision, and even the politics can be used as weapons to kill you competitors in a police state. Did you read the polls, or you just neglect people's opinions ? people == majority !!!!!!!!!

To: Gerald Walls who wrote (10937)	9/23/1998 4:01:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 74651

<OT>Oops, I sort of missed this one. No, as opposed to my quotes of facts from the official Starr report to debunk your arguments based on feelings and emotions As if the official Starr report is the final, legally binding word. As if Starr's personal feelings and emotions somehow don't play into this at all. As if the lurid detail Starr's report wallows in isn't an attempt to play to "feelings and emotions". If you narrowly constrain the relevant facts to those presented by Starr, and ignore what Starr was doing vis a vis Clinton before his appointment, especially his previous involvement with the Paula Jones case and the right-wing Clinton haters promoting that case, then Clinton looks venal. Hell, he looks venal regardless. To go ever so briefly on topic, do you think discussion of the "facts" of the Microsoft antitrust case should be strictly constrained to what's in the DOJ filings? As I said before, we may as well throw in Jackson's latest ruling, legally it has more standing as near as I can see. But there are other facts. Your line seems to be that the 3 perjury convictions/year at the federal level, out of who knows how many cases could be made if anybody cared, means that it would be "unfair" not to impeach Clinton. The logic behind that is beyond me. "Prosecutorial discretion" was the phrase my honest Republican used. As far as emotion goes, we have this: The whole reason we have corrupt officials like Clinton is because they believe they are kings and can get away with anything. If they violate the public trust then they should be brought down hard and broken. That statement seems to be a little high on emotions and feelings to me. At this point, Starr seems to have gotten away with a lot more than Clinton, between his switching from private advisor to Paula Jones to Special Prosecutor, and his perpetual leaks of "secret" grand jury testimony. But, his rather sensational report is all the "facts" you need. I recall an interesting set of facts in Lawrence Walsh's report about former President Bush's truthfullness under oath, but I don't recall much effort to push a perjury case against him. Not to mention the whole S&L thing, of which the $66 million McDougal failure is somehow the only significant crime in the whole $1trillion affair. So, you have facts, and I have feeling and emotions. Oh, and a few totally irrelevant and off topic facts. But, I'm the smear artist, and you're objective and rational. mrknowitall and I agreed elsewhere, I think, that it's all politics, though somewhat confusingly I got the "facts" lecture from him too. Personally, with the fall election coming up, I thing everybody in Congress should go on record with how they would vote on impeachment, given the case made so far. That would give the electorate some clear choice in the matter. It could happen, but given current polls I expect there to be a lot of mumbling about "carefully weighing all the evidence" and very little honesty on the matter. That's just my feelings and emotions, though. Who do you think the 3 perjury convictions for next year should be? I'll give you Bill Clinton if you give me Bill Gates. Or is deposition-dependent amnesia an ironclad defense there? Cheers, Dan.