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: j_b who wrote (5298)	9/25/1998 11:56:00 AM
From: dougjn	Respond to of 67261

<<I agree, but I doubt it will show at the polls.>> The Repubs. are quite fortunate with respect to timing. The backlash will only be getting going when the elections hit. So you could be right. I can tell you I'll be part of the backlash. I'm an independent. Not gonna vote that way this time. I think it's very important to put the forces of Pat Robertson and Rep. Barr back in their boxes. <<Notice that you use the same sort of hyperbole (lurid detail, prejudicial as possible, etc.) when you discuss Starr. You are doing the same thing to him that you accuse him of doing to Clinton. Your basic premise is completely accurate, IMHO, but you are still attacking him on a visceral level instead of an intellectual one, in order to try to influence people.>> Firstly, I'm not making a legal report to Congress. Secondly, I admit to reaching for a bit of color there (for a change <g>). But then again, just which words do you think excessive when applied to Starr's report and conduct of the investigation? Is the phrase "lurid detail" excessive, or is it accurate? Do you think Starr wasn't, literally, organizing and presenting the facts he discovered in a manner as "prejudical as possible"? I stand by what I said. Doug