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: sea_biscuit who wrote (17779)	12/8/1998 9:09:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

'Impeachment' Brings Yawns in the Capital nytimes.com On that subject, there's this article from the Sunday NYT. All a bit surreal. Slouching toward disengagement. Conclusion from old Watergate hand Len Garment: The issues that provoked this clash between the executive and legislative branches are less threatening to the Constitution than those in Watergate, say some who lived through both. "There was a sense of awe and of great drama," recalled Elizabeth Drew, a journalist who covered Watergate for The New Yorker. Now, she said, "the issues involved are nowhere near the scale." Terry Eastland, the publisher of the American Spectator, said people simply did not want to follow a story when they thought they knew the end, and they believed that the Senate would not convict Clinton. Garment, the lawyer, saw something deeper, an anesthesia and amnesia producing a "dazed Disneyland" in modern politics. "The end of the cold war ended a sense of apprehension that major political events can affect our lives in a very serious way," he said. "There's a collapse of a sort of emotional memory about vital, energetic, pointed, pungent politics. It's just all games, dirty jokes." Or just politics, in the depressing modern sense. Me, I don't watch tv, I was listening a little on the radio in the car, but after a couple minutes I realize the kids shouldn't be hearing it. I hate it when that happens. Cheers, Dan.

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (17779)	12/8/1998 9:17:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Six billion people are doing it. The baneful fact that congress needs to take time to figure it out is embarrassing. We created a congress to establish the law which would manifest a just and peace loving nation; One that would prosper through the dedicated participation of citizenry devoted to its principles. Where in any of this can we help our children to assume the role of guardians of the ideals on which our country is founded. We've sold the cause down the river, and for what or who. Where is the ideal of justice if not in the unshakeable image on which our leaders stand. Where is prosperity if not springing from the root of our souls. The mere fact that decisive action is not available is terminally caustic to an already weakened system. Where will any of us place our confidence in the future? An ineffective congress, political leadership with no rudder of its own. Its not complicated, is it too late to give truth a chance?

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (17779)	12/8/1998 11:46:00 PM
From: Les H	Respond to of 67261

I didn't think Clinton's phone sex tapes were being played in the hearings. The public is more irate over the furby shortage. There's a higher turnout at Toys R Us than the polls.

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (17779)	12/9/1998 12:10:00 AM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Sounds like Clinto is preoccupied with sex...his defense report is full of it. WHITE HOUSE ARGUES IN PAPERS: CHECK THE DICTIONARY, IT WAS NOT SEX! It's a keystone of President Clinton's impeachment defense: Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. So, then, how does the dictionary define 'sex'? Tucked inside of their 184-page defense report [released late Tuesday.], Clinton's lawyers set out five definitions from which to choose: -- Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1st ed. 1981), at page 2082, defines ''sexual relations'' as ''coitus.'' -- Random House Webster's College Dictionary (1st ed. 1996), at page 1229, defines ''sexual relations'' as ''sexual intercourse; coitus.'' -- Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1997), at page 1074, defines ''sexual relations'' as ''coitus.'' -- Black's Law Dictionary (Abridged 6th ed. 1991), at page 560, defines ''intercourse'' as ''sexual relations.'' -- Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary (2d ed. 1996), at page 1755, defines ''sexual relations'' as ''sexual intercourse; coitus.'' Clinton's lawyers find this compelling. ''The president's understanding of these terms, which is shared even by several common dictionaries, could not possibly support a prosecution for perjury,'' they said in their report. ''How would a prosecutor prove these dictionaries 'wrong'?''