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: Machaon who wrote (17891)	12/9/1998 3:35:00 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Every politician lies to the public, almost on a daily basis. So would you be in favor of limiting the power of these destructive liars by slashing the Federal budget by, I don't now, how about 30% for starters?

To: Machaon who wrote (17891)	12/9/1998 3:38:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I get it. The joke is truth, honesty, integrity, justice and other words of that vernacular have no application. You don't expect such things from anybody you deal with. I can see why you've isolated your self to a definition aligned with only certain politics and politicians. Give truth a chance brother. It is worth it.

To: Machaon who wrote (17891)	12/9/1998 3:42:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Now, now Robert. You're violating the terms of substantive debate here, saying all politicians lie. Very weak. You smear too much with that broad a brush - I personally resent the generalization you're making that all of the opposition is cut of the same cloth as Mr. Clinton. To me, that's as fundamentally repugnant as saying all Germans were Nazis or that all white people are racists. It is a weak point from which to engage in a substantive debate. www2.techstocks.com That was Mr. Substantive Debate K, in his very first message to me, in a different forum. Things have only gotten more substantial since then. Units, all that new evidence Starr was going to present or the House was going to dig up, fear mongering, and most specially, how unknowable it all was at the last election how anybody would vote on impeachment. K's one for substantive debate, that's for sure. Cheers, Dan.

To: Machaon who wrote (17891)	12/9/1998 4:20:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Whew. Electronic diarrhea today I see. JLA

To: Machaon who wrote (17891)	12/9/1998 4:52:00 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>>For instance: This Impeachment committee. If the Republican members >>came out and said that they don't care what meets the Constitutional >>standards for impeachment, they want to impeach Clinton regardless >>of evidence and fair play and law, that would be an honest thing. >>Who's lying there? Considering that the Democrats on the committee and the defense are not arguing the evidence, it stands to reason that the defendant is guilty of the charges. The only argument during the hearings was whether they were impeachable offenses. The next step is for the general House to debate the impeachability of the charges.