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: pezz who wrote (931)	12/29/1998 3:26:00 AM
From: Bob Lao-Tse	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2390

A substantive and thoughtful post Pezz; thank you. And, while I agree that what we're seeing is the ol' pendulum aswingin' back, I do have to nit-pick one part of your otherwise accurate statement >>The Republicans... continue to push the self righteous moralizing... No they don't. The Democrats are the ones that keep bringing up morals. The Republicans are mostly talking about ethics and the law. It seems to me that the Democrats have a vested interest in trying to make the debate about morality because they can't legitimately argue ethical or legal relativism. And now, another idealistic attempt to sway someone's opinion about the basic issues at hand. If you think this is just about social evolution or ideological warfare you're grossly mistaken. We are dealing here, from both directions, with some very delicate issues about the relationship between us, our elected leaders and our legal system. How we deal with these issues will have a lot to do with what kind of times we live in when we're done with all this changin'. This is not a time to be partisan in either direction; it's a time to be wholly and calmly rational. Some years ago I was living in Florida, and I decided to drive across the country to see my family. On the way I was stopped by the police twice: once for a faulty tail-light (that somehow "came back on" when I pulled over) and once for following too closely. Neither time was I charged, but both times I was very carefully checked out. It was obvious that I was pulled over because I was out of state with Florida plates and that could mean {drugs}. Luckily I wasn't on any drugs and didn't have any drugs, but you can be certain that if I had given them any cause, they would have searched me, and if I had had anything on me they would've busted my ass. Despite the fact that their purported reason for pulling me over had nothing to do with drugs. Now, aside from relative position and power, and specific details of the supposed infractions involved, (and ignoring the fact that I wasn't charged with anything); how is this any different from the situation the President is in? If I had had anything on me and had been busted I would've been mighty pissed off, just like Bill. And I would've thought I got a pretty raw deal, just like Bill. But that would've been my tough luck. (Hopefully) just like Bill. And please, before any of you even start, all of the foregoing "Bill" references were about perjury and obstruction, not adultery. Regards, BLT

To: pezz who wrote (931)	12/29/1998 12:21:00 PM
From: R. Martenson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2390

<< I remember from my hippy day>> Clinton is being judged, IMHO, based on Woodstock morality. This will bring loads of support from millions, without a doubt. I am not denegrating the hippies of the 60's, a large portion of our current voters will forever be influenced by association with, participating, and or supporting friends of that very impressionable time. Those of us that were in the military during that very same time, and got 'spit' on by our own countrymen, understand a different frame of referrence. It isn't Democrat or Republican. In many respects, the only concept that made life bearable during those years was a belief in the Constitution and in the end guys like Nixon, Agnew, and now Clinton will some day fall 'victim' to the rules we were dying for. Some, today, still have the large broad sweep of judgement that all rules are bad because it cramps their agenda. Of my friends, who believe Clinton should resign or be impeach NON of them are religious right or even express any religions base to there beliefs. The one common thread is...they all are fearful of breaking the law, and strangely enough, non have ever subscribed to being 'hippies', although they are of that generation. Curious.

To: pezz who wrote (931)	12/29/1998 3:41:00 PM
From: Sharon J. Jones	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 2390

You sound like my Dad. Peolple are getting away from religion today IMO because they are getting smarter. Your average 10 year old today knows more than the wizards of 2000 years ago. Comparing the usage of biblical law to then and now is like comparing the donkey to the 747. Is there a God, most likely due to the doctrine of infinite regression this mess had to start somewhere. However religion is man's delusionary attempt to explain his being but more importantly to explain his end. The origins of religions are perpetrated by whackos who go off onto mountains or into the woods for 40 years and come back voila with all the answers. Or my favorite group the Mormons who find Nirvana in that most holiest of places Buffalo, NY. Truth is all religions are BS and now to have these phony right wing politicians hiding behind these charades and using them as their rational cannot and will not be accepted ever by me. Can you believe Clinton will be judged by a man wearing magic underwear (Hatch) what a laugh.