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: mrknowitall who wrote (13663)	11/7/1998 12:24:00 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

This is what I mean by depressing, Mr. K. You all claim to abhor poor old fight-em-all-off-Dan, but it seems to me you all prefer to pile on him like so many over-muscled football-players than to engage in substantive dialogue with anyone inclined to a less pugnacious approach. At one point, I thought that this thread could actually serve as a way to bring together people with different points of view, who might choose to use this opportunity if not to reach consensus, at least to gain some sort of empathetic understanding of where other people are coming from. That was naive of me, no doubt. I see that many, if not most, contributors to this thread simply come here to Do Battle with the Enemy, thereby to stimulate their adrenalin (beats going to the gym, perhaps). In the process, unfortunately, a lot of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing, gets unleashed. This is not aimed specifically at you, Mr. K. On the contrary, you have shown that you personally are quite open to discussion (as distinct from debate, of the cheezy high-school variety that Dan decries). But, frankly, I have really begun to wonder why anyone bothers posting to this thread. Perhaps you can enlighten me, at least where you yourself are concerned. jbe

To: mrknowitall who wrote (13663)	11/7/1998 12:26:00 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

This is what I mean by depressing, Mr. K. You all claim to abhor poor old fight-em-all-off-Dan, but it seems to me you would much prefer to trade barbs with him than to engage in any substantive dialogue with anyone else who may be so inclined. At one point, I actually thought that this thread could actually serve as a way to bring together people with different points of view, who might choose to use this opportunity if not to reach consensus, at least to gain some understanding of where other people are coming from. That was naive of me, no doubt. I see that many, if not most, contributors to this thread simply come here to Do Battle with the Enemy, thereby to stimulate their adrenalin (beats going to the gym, perhaps). In the process, unfortunately, they unleash a lot of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing. This is not aimed specifically at you, Mr. K. On the contrary, you have shown that you personally are quite open to discussion (as distinct from debate, of the cheezy high-school variety that Dan decries). But, frankly, I really wonder why people post to this thread. Perhaps you can explain that to me. jbe

To: mrknowitall who wrote (13663)	11/7/1998 4:18:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

K, I never said "it's not bad because everybody does it". What I say, actually, is that the Iran/Contra issues were much more serious. The original actions under investigation involve serious governmental issues, and the cover-up that followed involved all the litany of felonious actions you harp on with Clinton, but nobody ever came clean. You're being a bit of the cheesemeister to characterize my argument as "everybody does it". Purposeful miscontruing, I'd say. And I never said Reagan or Bush should have been impeached, either. It was too late to go after Reagan, and his control over the whole matter was questionable. Bush wasn't President at the time. He probably knew and understood more about what was going on than Reagan did, but didn't have any control either. Nobody ever claimed the buck stops with the VP. Congress was correct to stop well short of impeachment. By all indications, though, Bush has never been the least forthcoming about what he actually knew. What I argue, of course, is that if Iran/Contra didn't merit impeachment, BJgate merits it even less. The original acts, seamy thought they may have been, didn't involve anything like the same abuse of Presidential pardon, and the cover-up, with your litany of trumped up felonious charges, is over. All the alleged felonies amount to imperfect cooperation with Grand Inquisitor Starr, and many think Starr shouldn't have been involved in that level of personal investigation to begin with. But at least BJgate involved something that happened while Clinton was President, as opposed to the all the junk that Starr actually prosecuted people for. 4 years work and he never touched Clinton on that stuff, not a word about any of it in the dreaded report. But somehow impeachment talk has gone much further with BJgate than with Iran/Contra. Most of us know far more than we ever wanted to about BJgate, and think it's time to give it a rest. Prosecutorial discretion. Others differ. From discussion here, those that differ seem to be driven by personal hatred of Clinton and his politics more than anything else. As for the rehash part, of course, you guys are perfectly willing to rehash every charge ever made against Clinton ad nauseum, along with whatever Drudge dragged in lately. So what's the big deal?