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: lorrie coey who wrote (25124)	12/30/1998 10:48:00 AM
From: max	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

As for the "Unclethomas" description...again, Ray Charles could see this one for what it was. I think Ray Charles could see you for what you are!!! I find it unbelievable that libs like yourself label blacks as racists if they don't fall in line with the traditional liberal party bs. What an insult to minorities that have a different point of view, that don't need the big government democrats and their government hand outs. A racist tries to keep those that dare step out of line down, keep them in their place. So, you think Larry Flynt is a hero and all republican blacks are racists. Pitiful. Max

To: lorrie coey who wrote (25124)	12/30/1998 12:30:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>>I just call 'em as I see 'em. Then open your eyes and your mind will follow. December 30, 1998 Making Criminals of Us All By RICHARD DOOLING OMAHA -- Feet stomp. Fists pound. Fingers point. But whom should we blame for our popular President's unpopular impeachment and impending Senate trial? Mr. Clinton and the Democrats blame Kenneth Starr and the Republicans, who in turn blame the President and the Democrats, who blame Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, Lucianne Goldberg, Paula Jones, her lawyers or a host of others. But the root of the scandal lies elsewhere: in the surfeit of intrusive laws that would make criminals of almost anyone the Government decides to investigate. When Kenneth Starr, a by-the-book prosecutor, wound up his presentation before the House Judiciary Committee with a paean to his calling in life as a "Man of the Law," he spoke the truth. Were it not for the independent counsel statute and expanded interpretations of the sexual harassment laws, Mr. Starr would have had no authority to interrogate the President about his private sexual behavior. If Mr. Starr were sent back in a time capsule to 1962, he could have done nothing about President Kennedy's sexual indiscretions: independent prosecutors and lawyers trained to imagine new sexual harassment theories had not been invented yet. Without these laws run amok, the scandal that has gripped the nation for the last year, and the constitutional crisis it created, would be the stuff of an Orwell novel. At what point do the evils of intrusive, well-meaning laws outweigh their benefits? When does a law's reach exceed its grasp? Answer: Now. Any male supervisor who has consensual sex with another employee in any American workplace could be sued and deposed in the way Mr. Clinton was. Thanks to ever-expanding theories about what constitutes harassment, even private, consensual sex is fair game for questioning. What if, instead of punishing women who decline his unwanted advances, a powerful male employer simply rewards women who do consent to have sex with him? Does that violate Title VII sexual harassment laws? Probably. Let's question him under oath about his sexual relationships and let the jury decide. If he lies about sex to protect his family, it's perjury. If we are to be a nation of laws and not men, then perhaps we should pause before we attack yet another social malady or human weakness by passing yet another unenforceable law. Otherwise, it's a matter of selective enforcement, and anybody who can't afford to hire Johnnie Cochran or David Kendall will pay the price. Ulysses S. Grant once said, "I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." The nation has witnessed the merciless, stringent execution of its sexual harassment laws on President Clinton. Should we remove him from office or repeal the odious laws? It should be one or the other. If we let him off the hook but keep the laws on the books, then the Greek statesman Solon was right when he said, "Laws are like spiders' webs which, if anything small falls into them they ensnare it, but large things break through and escape." Should we remove him from office or repeal the odious laws? It should be one or the other. Actually, the best answer is BOTH.