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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (6786)	9/23/1998 2:41:00 PM
From: Liatris Spicata	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

David- I suspect Borzou is incapable of crafting a logically coherent argument, or even of knowing that such things exist (I understand I'm going on very little evidence- but it is what he has displayed on this thread today. I more than half expect he's just engaged in a little sport with his posts- surely people don't really think the way he has presented himself, do they?). He appears not to be able to distinguish between between the vacuity he has posted and the reasoned argument that Priest presented. Robert Heinlien made the point that democracies need to have some qualification for voting other than the voter's body temperature of approximately 98.6F. It's utterly laughable that someone of Borzou's demonstrated intellectual prowess participates in the affairs of state even to the extent of electing a leader. I suspect that's how scum like Sleazebag Bill get elected to high office to begin with. Larry

To: DMaA who wrote (6786)	9/23/1998 2:51:00 PM
From: Borzou Daragahi	Respond to of 13994

I agree with you that Ms. Dowd's work is filled with fluff. Ironically, when the Times originally hired her to replace Anna Quinlan, she was supposed to be this hard-hitting Washington insider and Frank Rich, a former theater critic, was going to be the op-ed's fluff columnist. Turns out Rich's stuff is much better researched and thought out than Dowd's. Her columns replicate the tone of a Cosmo 10-steps-to-tighter-abs piece.

To: DMaA who wrote (6786)	9/23/1998 11:51:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 13994

David, what a lot of people seem to have missed is that Maureen Dowd is for #1, a conservative columnist. #2, her column was satire designed to make a point: The point was that while reading her column, most people, though the name wasn't mentioned, presumably were assuming she was writing about Bill Clinton when she wrote that "he couldn't stop thinking about her thong underwear". The point, it seems apparent to me, is that obviously it is BILL, not KEN, who is "obsessed with sex", if anyone is. This is to counter the ridiculous notion that some Dems have put out that somehow it is Kenneth Starr who is guilty of being a purveyer of porn. Who were ya'll thinking about when reading Maureen Dowd's column? Bill or Ken? Obviously Bill. It wasn't until the end that she reveals that she was sarcastically and satirically writing from a supposed view from Ken Starr's eyes. Btw, one of the giveaways of satire was the last line, where she said, "He couldn't be impeached". That is false. Federal judges can indeed be impeached, and indeed have been. I don't have the reference available right now, but I saw the reference in an early news article detailing the history of impeachments.