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: greenspirit who wrote (15372)	11/20/1998 12:33:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

So where did 21 come in, Michael? Lewinsky is currently 25, so there was a 4 year affair? Is this in the Starr report? Along with the "sex slave" thing? You wouldn't be (un)subtly misstating the "facts" here a bit, would you? Very unusual for the "substantive debate" we normally engage in here. Are you the new K alter ego, pressing the "substantive debate" case that anybody who doesn't want impeachment is a White House agent? There sure seem to be a lot of White House agents among the unwashed masses. Cheers, Dan.

To: greenspirit who wrote (15372)	11/20/1998 1:28:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<Borzou, you do an admirable job of defending your party and the President. :-)>> Michael, how many times does Borzou have to tell you that he is neither a Democrat nor a supporter of the President? Why do you insist on putting him in a box? To quote a recent post from Borzou, "let's put down our partisan guns for a sec". One example of Borzou on Clinton: Clinton is a lying though gifted manipulator and an ambitious Yuppie opportunist. He's a J.R. Ewing donning the mask of Phil Donahue.. #reply-6403201 And in a post to you, Michael: He's a cad. We all know that. We all knew that in 1992 when he was first elected.....I happen to believe that a public official having sexual relations with a public employee in a public building becomes a public matter...I agree that Clinton committed perjury and tried to cover up that perjury. #reply-6494804 This is Borzou's real point, which concludes the above post: But I and the vast majority of the people believe that such actions do not constitute an impeachable offense. That is what you should be arguing about, Michael. You could insist that it is an impeachable offense. Or you could dispute Borzou's claim to speak for "the people". Or you can call him a cynic (as others have). Or whatever. But to respond to Borzou as if he were a "Democratic partisan" is to shift the grounds of debate. Another thing. You often accuse the "Democrats" on this thread of not having a positive "platform". Borzou rose to that challenge, with the following post. (Note that it beings with the sentence: "I'm not really a Democrat, but I have been identified by some on this thread as a liberal.") techstocks.com In that post, Borzou laid out some very specific positions on eight issues (economy, civil rights, taxes, crime/drugs, education, political reform, foreign policy, environment). Yet you never responded. I don't mean to be picking on you, Michael. It is just that people on this thread often simply do not read other people's posts carefully enough, and respond not to what other people actually write, but to what they think "such people" would write. Hence the Alice in Wonderland quality of so much of the discussion. jbe P.S. This does not mean that I share all of Borzou's opinions.

To: greenspirit who wrote (15372)	11/20/1998 1:37:00 PM
From: Borzou Daragahi	Respond to of 67261

Let me state it once and for all without any ambiguity: Just because someone does not believe Clinton's actions rise (or stoop) to the level of impeachability does not necessarily mean -they believe adultery and perjury are OK. -they are Democratic partisans. -they are supporters of President Clinton. The Republicans inability to understand this point will only further alienate them from the electorate. Here's my opinion on what the GOP should be doing: exchange2000.com Borzou, you do an admirable job of defending your party and the President. :-) Never voted for Clinton. Not a Democrat. So what you're saying is that if it's business related than it would be really wrong. But if it's only about lying and having sex with 21 year old interns it's not? hmmmm, let's see where this may lead us. :-) No, Michael, what I was saying was that running a prostitution ring out of the White House while being president is illegal while having sex with a consenting adult is legal. You and I may agree that Clinton's original behavior was abhorrent, but it did not violate the law. That he violated the law in covering up a legal though shameful act was a mitigating factor in the American voters' decision to let the whole thing slide.