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: Who, me? who wrote (7320)	10/5/1998 7:55:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

How about the money Bubba just wasted on his little China kow tow excursion? I guess if you are wasting the money on the PC liberal pet projects, its OK. JLA

To: Who, me? who wrote (7320)	10/5/1998 8:02:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Well, I have been listening to the impeachment hearings on C-Span radio, and in some ways I have been very surprised by them. It is true that the debate has been partisan. But a particular argument is not necessarily wrong just because it is partisan. I am a registered Democrat, yet I was able to find merit in the arguments of both sides. As a matter of fact, at times I felt as if I were watching a ping-pong game. I'd listen to one side, and say -- well, that sounds right. Then I'd turn to the other, and I would say -- that sounds right, too! These folks-- at least most of them -- are skilled debaters, and they were debating complex and subtle points, on which there can legitimately be disagreement. In other words, there is more than one way to skin a cat. And to some questions there is no single One Right Answer. As for the democratic amendments: the first one, I think, was just a trial balloon, which nobody expected to fly; the second one was more serious, and I personally am sorry it failed. The purpose of the second amendment was basically designed to limit the committee's investigation to the allegations contained in the Starr Report. I am sorry it failed because I would not like to see whole new inquiries launched into Whitewater, Filegate, Foster, & etc. It's even a sort of "no-confidence vote" in Ken Starr. If he could not produce any evidence of any impeachable offense in these matters after all these years, what makes the Judiciary Committee think it can turn up anything? In any event, I can see this whole impeachment process going on for years and years, like a bad dream from which none of us will ever be able to wake up. It is not a process I welcome, although some of you may be looking forward to it. :-( jbe