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: Bill who wrote (5424)	9/25/1998 11:38:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

Issues and facts. Let's try this once more. You have done nothing but spew hate toward republicans, offering no real insight. The Bush and Thomas issues are past and not directly comparable because there was no allegation of perjury or obstruction of justice, as the IC has referred about Clinton. Even if you can't, the Congress will surely stay on topic and most will put aside petty partisan politics. (from www2.techstocks.com ) That's your version of issues and facts. Then, we have Lawrence Walsh: With those pardons, Walsh exploded from the careful lawyer's diction and restraints. Walsh lashed out on national television, in words that strongly implied that President Bush's motive for the pardons had nothing to do with mercy but was a craven attempt to save his own skin: "President Bush had failed to produce to investigators his own highly relevant, contemporaneous notes [about Iran-contra] despite repeated requests. . . . " Walsh argued that some of these notes would have had to be furnished to Weinberger. They could have led not only to President Bush being called as a witness but to his prosecution for perjury. "In light of President Bush's own misconduct, we are gravely concerned about his decision to pardon others who lied to Congress and obstructed an official investigation." So, you think this stuff was just some policy dispute, but bimbogate is somehow this important constitutional crisis. I'm spewing hate, by quoting a special prosecutor who didn't turn himself into a laughing stock, and you're the calm voice of reason. Perjury only counts when it's in the context of a currently dead lawsuit, instigated as a political mudslinging campaign, by the same allegedly "Independent Counsel" who's put out a ridiculously lurid "report" that now contains the only "facts" that could possibly be relevant here. Ok. Cheers, Dan.

To: Bill who wrote (5424)	9/26/1998 9:25:00 AM
From: cool	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Didn't Starr try to get Monica to wear a wire to secretly tape the Pres? That would have been a first. Just wonder if you guys condone and can justify that effort.

To: Bill who wrote (5424)	9/26/1998 9:33:00 AM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Curious to know your take on this point of view: Suzie Bright on the Starr Report: And now we have the Starr report. Wanna know what professional sex radicals and pornographers have to say about the "The Referral"? I'll tell you -- we're dyin' out here. It feels like everything we've worked for has been hijacked to some totally isolated island controlled by Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition. Last week friends e-mailed me with requests to get to the bottom of the notorious Footnote 210, the cryptic oral/anal reference that remains unexplained yet dripping with innuendo in the report's index. Is this what all my patient and reassuring essays on anal sex have come to -- a gig as an expert interpreter on the footnotes of a witch hunt? No fucking thanks! The chances of me now running a little innocent sex-ed column about the joys of rimming are absolutely zero. I've never been so turned off to anal sex in my life. Last week I also got the copy-edited proofs for the new edition of "Best American Erotica," my annual anthology of the year's most outstanding erotic prose. As usual, I have a little crush of awe and admiration for every author I include. I think they're each so original and sensitive. But now I look at their valiant work and wonder, "Does anyone want to read erotica anymore?" When the American public is being told that Ken Starr's narrative is the raciest, steamiest prose since Harold Robbins last rubbed himself on a rug, what does that do for the reputation of erotic writing? This sucks! I had thought of writing about the current medical debate about the "size" of the clitoris this week -- but it's impossible to write about anybody's clitoris these days if you don't include Monica Lewinsky's. I want to write about adultery and sex changes and Internet sex communiqués, but I can't even get to my own perspective on these issues without being suffocated by images of Hillary's tight lips and Ken's youthful cross-dressing. Bill pleads to the grand jury, between bathroom breaks, "You've criminalized my sex life!" and I'm saying, "Yeah, well, all you assholes have criminalized everyone else's sex lives from the get-go, and now you've successfully cauterized your own!" Where do we go to have a sweet sexual moment, a private intimate thought, without being invaded by this wire-tapped, semen-stained coup d'état ? Speaking as someone who has agitated on the front lines to illustrate the benefits of erotic candor, I feel robbed, I feel sick. I joked that the Meese Report was unintentionally sexy because it quoted so much actual pornographic prose. But the Starr Report is ANTI-erotic because it takes every sex act, no matter how vivid, and turns it into a cross between shame and chopped liver. Starr may make Clinton look awful, he may crucify privacy rights and due process, but he makes sex look like we're better off without it. SALON \| Sept. 25, 1998 Doug