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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (8640)	10/9/1998 7:35:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

<<specifically with you brees, I see no reason not to call you>> Please Michelle, every one here has gotten a little uncomfortable with your flirtatious attitude toward me. People are even PMing me asking what is up between us. I will be busy this weekend, don't call. You refer to me in many of your posts, now this. In fact, I'm taking the receiver off the hook until you get over this compulsion. Please, I know he's a big dissappointment but it made more sense when you were compulsing over Bill Clinton.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (8640)	10/9/1998 7:46:00 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 67261

I missed it, where in the purpose statement does it say any of that just for liberals balogni?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (8640)	10/9/1998 7:55:00 PM
From: j g cordes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

This made sense before and it makes more sense now... September 30, 1998 Government by Automatic Pilot By EUGENE J. McCARTHY WASHINGTON -- Puritans usually wreak more havoc than sinners. Cromwell did far more damage than any English king. Reformers did more harm to American cities earlier in this century than the supposedly corrupt political bosses did. And the postal system based on patronage worked better than the one that allegedly runs on "merit." The independent counsel law both complicates and outweighs Bill Clinton's sins because it structurally undermines the rule of law and representative institutions. Worse, it is part of a long-running trend. It is one of many laws enacted in the past 30 years that try to elevate government above politics and therefore criminalize politics, cripple government, or both. The idea is to inoculate the country against the errors and failings of our leaders by putting government on automatic pilot. The assumption behind the independent counsel law is that elections, the Justice Department, the courts and Congress will all be insufficient to check whatever corruption exists in the White House. Similarly, when the House found it necessary to investigate two of its Speakers, Jim Wright and then Newt Gingrich, it did not trust itself. Even though the Constitution says that each house of Congress determines its own rules and punishes its own members, special counsels were deemed necessary. The Federal Government in general has become positively prosecutorial. Unelected magistrates at the Internal Revenue Service and the Environmental Protection Agency routinely rule on the motives as well as actions of citizens, with little regard for their legal rights. This is no-fault politics -- where the buck never stops. In the wake of Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Act, which only muddled the constitutional waters and blurred the moral and political responsibilities of both the President and the Senate. Similarly, the 1982 Boland Amendment, which forbade the Central Intelligence Agency to intervene in Nicaragua, undermined the President's authority to make foreign policy while bypassing the advice-and-consent responsibilities of the Senate. So too with indexing of government salaries and entitlement cost-of-living adjustments for inflation, a practice Congress embraced 20 years ago. Relying on an automatic mechanism was easier than making case-by-case judgments and accepting the political consequences. We seem to be saying: "Save us from politics and from the responsibility of choice. Let us trust a magistrate instead." We do not trust our own ability to lead and judge, or the system the Founders created. Instead of asserting political control over Social Security, the President and Congress appointed a "bipartisan" commission to deliver a "solution" -- one that did not take. The White House has been no better. Instead of dealing directly with Congress on taxes and the budget, for example, President Bush initiated the "budget summit" in 1990. Instead of taking their health plan to the people, Bill and Hillary Clinton assembled a kitchen cabinet of experts and delivered their report to the various interest groups. When a President misbehaves, it is for Congress to discipline him as the Constitution indicates. The inquiry should begin and end in Congress. Government by special ministers is not representative government. And prosecution by special prosecutors is not consistent with the American idea of due process of law. The fault is not in our constitutional system, or in ourselves, but in the current disposition to assign all difficult problems in American government to independent agents and procedures in which no elected official is held to account. By doing so, we have de-democratized much of government and criminalized much of politics.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (8640)	10/9/1998 8:06:00 PM
From: Who, me?	Respond to of 67261

<<I suggest, that if you cannot make your point in a civil and/or homorous manner, that you go over there along with Who Me,>> Dear Michelle, I've just spent a few minutes glancing over the terms of use as a member of SI. I could not find anything that said I needed special permission to post on any of the public threads. If I missed that part of the agreement, would you mind directing me to it? I want to be in compliance with the rules. Now, I'm fully aware that you're accustomed to having your own way and that you're, obviously, very in love with yourself but I really don't give a rats butt whether you like me here or not! As far as civility is concerned, you are constantly being as nasty as any one person on all of SI when it comes to talking about conservatives and any person of faith, no matter what their religion! Yet still, when someone comes back at you, you immediately yell "no fair, no fair"! If you haven't figured it out yet, everyone else has! As far as humor goes, there's a difference in laughing with someone and laughing at someone!! Most are laughing at you!!! Get a grip, Valley girl!