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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (17972)	12/9/1998 8:11:00 PM
From: Machaon	Respond to of 67261

<< Clarence Thomas had 2 weeks of hearings, and now he sits on the Supreme Court forever. >> Here was a sad example of choosing ideology and theocracy over experience and ability.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (17972)	12/9/1998 9:45:00 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

The idiot Democrats tried to corner him on their litmus test on abortion. He's probably no less competent than the many stiffs like Rostenkowski, Metzenbaum, Biden, Kennedy, et al. of that time. I remember Roosevelt the last American Pope tried to change the Supreme Court to hold 15 seats so he could pack the court with Socialists. Anything you want to accuse the Republicans, I can pretty much find the several of the same attempts by the Democrats. Remember they were in control for 40 years and had plenty of time to screw things up. They should be so proud that the government budget is at least 80-90% Democrat programs.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (17972)	12/9/1998 9:51:00 PM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Gosh Dan, you mean all those on the Senate Judiciary were derelict in their duty, and you, the present WH spin disseminator for this site can sit in judgement of their vote for approval of Judge Thomas? Hmmmmm. Legal minds want to know. It's funny how those who wish to divert attention from the present real issues will delve fractionally into the past to somehow make something out of nothing. Unlike the vast audience of the free-left-swinging, no-accountability press, this forum has a number of persons who will rise to point out your obvious affiliation with the DNC or the WH itself. You can't silence me only because you don't know who I am, unlike the minions of the WH and "Justice" Department. Your all-too-often rather transparent reliance on the DNC/WH concocted, pseudo-intellectual spin/arguments are of the sort that would make your lesser opponents wander around into trivial research that consumes time but fails to address the real issue: We have a despicable liar in the White House who, at the behest of his supporter's influence in the mainstream "news" media, has gotten a free pass on perjury at our expense. Still don't want to tackle the issue of what would happen to you or me if we lied under oath in a civil case, eh, Dan? You like the fact that his royal-highness-above-the-law is going to skate on this don't You? Mr. K.