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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (20435)	12/16/1998 2:48:00 PM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Sure, Michelle, take cover with your elitist cronies - hope you don't find out about the backgrounds of some of your Democrat champions. First, your civics background is shaky - the representatives we elect to the House were to be of the common people - the Senate was the higher congressional "class" office. Far be it for me to besmirch a profession, but the preponderance of barristers in our congress has not been all that positive a situation, IMO. Did you somehow think the Starr Report should have been kept secret? That the House should have conducted the hearings behind closed doors? That would have been interesting - the Dem's would come out and say there was nothing in the "secret" report and when the votes went against them behind closed doors they'd claim there was nothing in the report and that the President was being railroaded. Good strategy, eh? Then the Dems would fallaciously plant leaks about supposedly exculpatory information that wasn't really in the report as if it were. Another good idea, yes? Then the media would fall all over themselves to make up their view of the report. Both sides would blame each other for the inevitable leaks. When you're dealing with a party that will lie to support a liar, and a media that will bend and twist a story into a politically correct opinion piece at the behest of that party, you have to put all the facts out for the public to judge the truth. Mr. K.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (20435)	12/16/1998 3:58:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Michelle, I would prefer Tom DeLay's background over those of MOST democrats. After graduating from Univ of Houston in 1970, he owned and operated a small business in TX. It was a pest control business, but a small business nonetheless, which gave him a background in how the government deals with the country's economic engine, small businesses. From 1978-84, he was in the TX state legislature. And he's been a congressman for the past 14 years. Compare that with Patrick Kennedy. The family bought his seat right out of college. Or Marty Meehan, who was a lacky in the Mass. Secretary of State's office his entire career, before running for congress. Or Barney Frank, another career hack who never had a real job. Or even uncle Teddy K. who's only qualification was his last name and the fact he got thrown out of Harvard for cheating. I'll take a guy like DeLay any time over these yo-yos.