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.

Pastimes : Impeachment=" Insult to all Voters" -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rose Rose who wrote (397)	12/21/1998 3:33:00 PM
From: alan w	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2390

I'm just wondering, what was you daughter's response to Clinton spending more than Starr's investigation on a weekend war that accomplished nothing? alan w

To: Rose Rose who wrote (397)	12/21/1998 4:20:00 PM
From: J.B.C.	Respond to of 2390

>>It's not really the money, as I'm sure you know. Let's put it this way -- which is more important, Clinton's alleged perjury or the fact that the homeless man who sits outside Ralph's grocery store needs a pair of shoes, and the dollar a week I can afford to give him for carrying my groceries to the car isn't likely to buy those shoes for him?<< So what's the point, government has had 200+ years to fix that problem and hasn't. Whether Bill is busy defending his lies or not won't matter. The rule of law matters more than any of those issues. By the way, I calculate the the "free willy" tour in Iraq cost over $1 BB. Now that could have feed a lot of people. Saddam is still in power, they are still making weapons of mass destruction. Oh, and so are we, N. Korea, India, Pakistan, China...wonder when we start attacking those countries. Jim

To: Rose Rose who wrote (397)	12/21/1998 4:58:00 PM
From: Shoot1st	Respond to of 2390

I'd be willing to bet that if one of you girls volunteer to give "little Willy" the severe tongue lashing "he" needs for being such a bad boy...that Big Willy would go out and steal a pair of shoes for that poor man. Shoot1st.......

To: Rose Rose who wrote (397)	12/21/1998 5:26:00 PM
From: charred	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2390

Well Rose, if my response was semi -intelligent, your response is pathetic and brain dead. Are you blonde? Rose, I would really really really like to hear your comment about the show on the White House lawn. Also, what is your comment about the President having a BJ while talking on the phone about deploying troops. If your daughter was in the military, how would you react? About the 40 million, both parties are guilty of over spending. How about Clinton raiding Social Security. The 40 million is nothing compared to this. THINK ROSE THINK. Listen Rose I am not right wing, both parties are at fault for this mess. Clinton has done many good things for the states, however Clinton should of kept his zipper shut. He took advantage of Monica in the White House which is a workplace. I don't understand why women groups aren't revolting about this. Then he says equal rights for women. How can you believe him again? Cheers.

To: Rose Rose who wrote (397)	12/21/1998 5:32:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2390

Sorry -- perjury can't compete. I submit that it can and does when it is carried out by the person given the prime responsibility for executing the laws of our nation. That homeless person counts on the law to protect him against thugs pouring gasoline on him and burning him alive. (Tragically, a true story.) In the case I'm aware of, the perpetrators got caught and convicted by the legal system. Even the homeless have rights in our society. "Your" homeless person's best chance to be fed, clothed, and housed is through a society which has a strong legal and justice system; in some ways more it is more important for him than for you, since those at the bottom of the feeding chain are the most vulnerable to the beginnings of lawlessness in a society. What does this have to do with impeachment? As I said in an earlier post, the degredation of the integrity of testimony under oath is a body blow to the integrity of our legal system. Ask yourself: if the police see the chief law enforcement officer of the U.S., the had of the FBI and Department of Justice, lying under oath and getting away with it, will it make them more or less likely to think it is okay for them to lie under oath in a "good" cause (nailing a person they are convinced should be in jail even if they don't have the evidence to prove it). And if they decide that's okay, is it more likely that they will get away with lying about the homeless person who can't afford a lawyer, or about you, who probably can? The most vulnerable in our society are the ones who most need the protection of the law and most need to depend on the integrity of the persons who enforce and uphold the laws. No matter how much short term good Clinton may or may not do for the homeless, the long term damage he does to their rights will be far more devestating for a far longer period of time.

To: Rose Rose who wrote (397)	12/21/1998 5:39:00 PM
From: R. Martenson	Respond to of 2390

"Sorry -- perjury can't compete." I respectfully disagree. I lived in a world for 25 years where your oath and commitment to that oath meant the life or death of individuals on a regular basis. It many cases friends gave up family, friends, and fame ( i.e. gave their lives) to protect a principal, an ethic, a way of life governed by laws. ALL Clinton had to do was tell the truth, in my humble opinion, for the most powerfull man on earth and a lawyer ( whom I do not 'know' ), that was pure cowardice. That character trait cannot lead men and woman who in turn give up their lives on a regular basis for the very same oath.