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 (1182)	1/3/1999 10:27:00 PM
From: Bob Lao-Tse	Respond to of 2390

Daniel: Now that's more like it. Personally, I haven't contributed much to Sanity Check lately for the same reasons you cite. I wouldn't blame it all on JLA, but there certainly has been a lot of vitriol flying around there lately. That and discussions about the "love child," which I don't think to be really pertinent at all. I'm waiting to see how the National Enquirer covers the story, since I think it's more their type of story anyway. >>the Senate trial is going to be mercifully brief... I'm not entirely sure that this is true, but we can hope. >>...and predictable I'm sorry, but I have to totally disagree with this. I have been continually surprised by the directions this whole saga has taken, and I expect to be surprised some more. >> nobody seems much interested in rehashing at great length all the lurid details of the Starr report This is mostly true, except for the details that conflict with Clinton's sworn testimony. Those will almost certainly be hammered on regularly, and IMHO should be. >>Of course, nobody ever tires of reciting every other accusation ever raised against Clinton, despite the fact that Starr couldn't find any evidence worth presenting. In this, this is just like Iran-contra. In our debates about Iran-contra, I have never tried to excuse anyone's actions. I personally think that at least Bush got up on the stand, under oath, and misled like crazy. But nobody could prove it. (BTW I think that Reagan's involvement amounted to, at most, "Take care of this for me, but don't tell me about it.") But to me, there is one important difference. When all the mud started flying at Reagan, none of it stuck. But when the mud started flying at Clinton, one piece of it did stick. Maybe that mud shouldn't have been thrown in the first place, but it was. And now that something has stuck to him, we (and more importantly, the Congress) have a responsibility to follow it through to the end. To do otherwise would be a repudiation of the law. I don't think that this view makes me a "Clinton hater," but rather a proponent of the rule of law. And if this investigation genuinely was handled in an unethical manner, then Clinton, just like anyone else, can fight it on that basis. >>I hope that people will move forward with the upcoming Presidential campaign... So do I, but I'm not holding my breath. -BLT