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: max who wrote (22454)	12/18/1998 10:30:00 PM
From: TigerPaw	Respond to of 67261

typical of demos You are confusing me with that new beta release of Windows 2000. I just thought I would give you a preview of what you are going to have to explain to your grandchildren. TP

To: max who wrote (22454)	12/18/1998 11:31:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

On the peewater thing, that seems to be a general problem with the unit crowd around here. They're always bored if the insult pissing match isn't going their way. I find the insult pissing match boring, myself. On the going down thing, the phrasing sounded familiar, I had to go back to an old reference. James Carville claims in his coming book about Starr, "... And the Horse He Rode In On," that he had an encounter with Starr almost a year before he was appointed Whitewater independent counsel, replacing a moderate Republican, Robert Fiske. Carville, one of Clinton's closest political associates, says in the book that he met Starr in October 1993, in the USAir executive lounge at Washington National Airport, although at the time he had no idea who Starr was. Carville recalled that a stranger walked up to him and "started spouting an unsolicited and shameful tirade against the president." "Your boy's getting rolled," Carville said the stranger said ominously to him before walking away. nytimes.com Spounting off on every rumor ever raised about Clinton is ever popular here, as in the recent revival of who killed Vince Foster. Personally, my view tends in another direction from the story above. "I thought from day one, as I think today, that this was bad for the country," said one of Starr's defenders who now questions his tactics. "Sometimes you have to exercise prosecutorial discretion." Even though this defender of Starr said he believed the president was guilty of significant misconduct, he said, "the cost to the country far outweighs the value of proving it. But around here, proving it is no big deal. BJgate might be the only thing Starr has any evidence on, but it's least of Clinton's sins. Evidence? Who needs it, when the boy's getting rolled regardless.