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: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (932)	12/29/1998 7:44:00 AM
From: Rose Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2390

A good analogy, and I see your point, but I don't think that it is comparable to what Kenneth Starr has done. There is a fair bit of evidence that Starr has paid and/or bribed witnesses, threatened witnesses, harassed witnesses, avoided standard procedures, etc etc etc. Starr should most definitely be tried for obstruction of justice at the very least. I was happy to hear that Susan McDougal intends to fight back for what Starr did to her, and I feel confident that eventually the truth will be known to all. I hear so many conservatives shrieking that Clinton should be treated like any other person who'd committed a crime. By God, I wish he had been! This entire case would have been thrown out ages ago. The Republicans have taken up the cry that this is not about sex. In a sense, they're right -- it didn't start out that way. It started as a partisan effort to find dirt on Clinton in order to get revenge for his unpardonable sin of being the people's choice for President of the United States. As soon as Starr uncovered sex-related dirt on the President, it became about sex and nothing else, until Clinton was forced to testify and then ALLEGEDLY committed perjury, at which point the Republicans gladly seized on perjury as being "what this is all about". You people who continue to say that this has never been about sex have very short memories. Before the supposed perjurious testimony, what in the hell DO you think it was about (other than Starr's ego and power trip, of course)? Keep in mind -- Clinton is NOT going to admit that he committed perjury because he does not believe that he has (neither do I, for that matter). And those of you continuing to gleefully hope for his removal are in for a sad disappointment. Rose

To: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (932)	12/29/1998 11:00:00 PM
From: pezz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2390

<<No they don't. The Democrats are the ones that keep bringing up morals. The Republicans are mostly talking about ethics and the law.>> I think if you look a little deeper you might think otherwise. The Republicans want us to believe that. Indeed they do talk about ethics and law but at the same time they put Stars report on the internet.This was a not so subtle attempt to try to swing public opinion around to their side.Think back to only a few years ago when Gary Hart[sp?] got caught with his pants down so to speak. It has always been a politician killer. The Republicans know this and do push the issue.Was the "cigar " story really necessary? Yes they talk ethics and law but what they promote is morals. And it frustrates them so that it isn't working. <<And now, another idealistic attempt to sway someone's opinion about the basic issues at hand.>> Ahh, Bob my friend how long have you been on these threads? But keep trying I enjoy your posts. As it happens I will accept your analogy as it does help me clarify my position. You see I believe that drugs like sex between consenting adults should be legalized.There for I would think that anything that you could do to avoid prosecution could be looked at in a different light.If a law is unjust then action taken to circumvent the law may well be justified. I have said all along that Clinton lied under oath. I personally think that questions about his sex life should never have been asked. For sure he could have handled them better but he was caught between a rock and a hard place. [remember Hart? ] This is how I accept what he did. Yes I know that this is a nation of laws applying to all. . The reality of it is that all laws were not created equal.Still he lied under oath but under the circumstances I don't find that this falls under the category of Treason bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors. Just my opinion ...might be wrong.... pez