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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (5196)	9/24/1998 4:05:00 PM
From: j_b	Respond to of 67261

<<I'll try to be polite>> Thanks - I never mind people pointing out weaknesses in my positions. After all, it's just an opinion, and opinions (at least mine) are always subject to change if new information is provided. <<Clinton doesn't seem exceptional>> That was really my point. Too many people are pointing to one side (the way you do regarding Starr), but fail to concede that both sides practice the same tactics. To belittle the testimony of one side based on the smears of the other (both Clinton and his detractors have done this) adds little constructive to the debate, especially when these types of tactics are used almost exclusively where you can't prove anything. <<Starr's office has not been shy about the strategic leak>> Also not yet proven, and Clinton's group has not been shy about leaking information either (especially Sidney Blumenthal). Again, that's my point. <<Plus, smear-wise, you have a lot of "colorful language" in his report that seems a bit excessive.>> If you are saying you don't agree with the "method" Starr used to report his findings to Congress, I agree completely. A simple one-paragraph " I believe the evidence shows impeachable offenses such as obstruction, perjury, etc." would have been enough, accompanied by the evidence. There's enough "colorful" information in the evidence to give the most prurient Congressperson some bathroom reading. Again, I am not defending Starr, only pointing out that both sides are equally guilty of dirty fighting. I would like to see that sort of behavior eliminated by having the electorate make it plain that we will not support people that fight dirty.