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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (1160)	1/2/1999 7:17:00 PM
From: Bob Lao-Tse	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2390

And "Bleat, bleat" to you too, Daniel. At least I (with small exceptions) have the skill and pride to use my own words. You will notice that, while I have occasionally thrown in a pertinent quote here and there, I have never resorted to reprinting someone else's words. But of course, I am capable of making a cohesive point entirely on my own. Now, as to your statements: >>the House voted down perjury in the Jones deposition, so all that's left is insufficient cooperation with the Grand Inquisitor Starr. Neither I nor you know why the second article of impeachment was not passed, nor is it that significant. The two articles that were passed still concern themselves with much more than "insufficient cooperation." >>You say no elected officials were to blame there (Iran-contra), except for Reagan, who didn't know what was going on? That's not what I said at all. I simply pointed out that no elected officials were charged with anything there, and that logic dictates that Reagan at least knew about it, but that there was no evidence to prove that. >>How about George "out of the loop" Bush? He sat in all the NSC meetings, he was a former CIA head, he was the expert in foreign policy. Indications are he knew exactly what was going on. Actually, I've always believed that Bush was in charge, and have never said otherwise. >>But for trust, honesty, ethics, morals, whatever, I can't see any big distinction There is one basic distinction. The closest any of the particulars in Iran-contra got to perjury was "I can't recall." And they certainly didn't go on national television, shake their fingers at us, and lie through their teeth. But you seem to miss the basic flaw in your entire premise. Even granting you all of your points about Iran-contra, it's not pertinent. If you're driving down the highway at 80 MPH and there's someone in front of you who's going 85, and you get pulled over, do you really think that you can legitimately say "Hey wait a minute, you can't give me a ticket, that guy's going faster than me." Of course not. Laws aren't relative. At least not so far. -Bob Lao-Tse