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.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jhild who wrote (14385)	11/20/1998 10:05:00 PM
From: Rambi	Respond to of 71178

As you know, I'm not politically acute or savvy enough to argue issues, and I dislike equally the extremes of both parties, so I'll ask you what you mean first about some of these things becuase I really just don't know. My gut reaction to Ken Starr was very positive. I believed him; I found the Democratic attack on him ridiculous. What's the point? This man has had a distinguished career and reached the highest trial position in the land-arguing cases before the Supreme Court. His career is a recommendation of his qualifications. Here are the facts--now is this an impeachable offense or not? a non-partisan understanding of the proportion of things He had an assignment. By definition of proportion, are you saying that he went too far, took it too seriously? Tried too hard? Broke laws? Or that the basis for the inquiry itself was inappropriate? How can you say it wasn't a search for the truth when Clinton was obfuscating and lying at every turn? Who knew WHAT was truth? If there were exculpatory testimony, surely the Democrats would have made sure it was brought into full light by now, by any means possible. Commentators mentioned how the thrust of the Democrats was attacking Starr and not the evidence, against which there was no defense. Do you think maybe the version we've been hearing might not be slightly partisan because of the confidentiality that bound Starr's position and also the growing tendency of the media to turn everything into National Enquirer material, with the glitz of OJ's trial? (How Starr disappointed them yesterday!!!) The country deserves better. It deserves better than the self-aggrandizing grandstanding of the Democrats yesterday. It deserves better than the cutesy and vitriolic partisanship of Hyde, or the incessant and ponderous chatter of Barney Frank. The country also deserves better than what it has in the White House. Or maybe it doesn't.