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 (5745)	9/27/1998 6:51:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Then there's the philosophical conundrum of Starr's unlimited right to smear,contrasted to his immunity to any attack on his motives, because it's "a White house smear". Through the looking glass we go Most apt. And Starr, and now DeLay as well, are making actual the previously theoretical threat that we are with Starr's investigation and report, entering into new levels of inquisitional legal attack on all political enemies. Starr's real ace is to say not just that it's a White House smear, but "it could be interpreted as an attempt to obstruct an ongoing investigation, and intimidate the members of this office." I.e., back off or get indicted. Truly does start getting a bit McCarthyesk, no? It seems to me that overall, the ad hominem attacks are very one sided. That's what I was trying to say. The "leave Clinton alone" side sometimes responds to an ad hominem attack in kind. You have, I have. (I mostly try not to. I've seen restraint from you as well.) The "sack the bum" side seems awfully quick to initiate such attacks in response to virtually any style of argument our side makes. Doug