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: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (32590)	2/7/1999 3:19:00 AM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 67261

Bob, my wonderful Zen philosopher I thoroughly enjoyed your post. And feel a kinship with your belief's and admiration for your ability to express them. Sorry if I put you on the defensive regarding partial birth abortion. You defended your position well, however, sometimes I think in the abortion arena people don't always think through what their position is actually saying. Your quite right to suggest that most if not all of the people on this thread never challenge their assumptions or belief's. I've been actually stunned by the degree of defense shown here by the multi-thread posters spending hours upon hours defending a person I wouldn't let babysitt my own children. What is it that prevents Democrats from seeing the truth staring right in front of them? Their leader is a pathetic excuse for President. The highest attributes for leadership are 1. Trust and honesty. and 2. Vision. Where do we see these attributes displayed in the person of William Jefferson Clinton? Is anyone perfect? Of course not, but have we so consumed the electorate with cynicism that this is now considered our standard for leadership?? If you decide to stop posting I wish you well and would like to say I've enjoyed everyone of your posts. Even the ones I have disagreed with. :-) Best, Michael

To: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (32590)	2/7/1999 4:01:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 67261

Kenneth Starr's Page in the History Books nytimes.com Since you bring up history, Bob, I thought you might enjoy this. On your broader argument, I've always found the "decline of the West due to Clinton" argument amusing, except for this short period between the time I read Andrew Sullivan's NYT Magazine article pointing out that line was mainstream neoconservatism and the November elections. I was more scared than amused then. To me, at least, the most distinctive characteristic of the Starr investigation is the way it has transformed an arm of the Federal Government into a powerful force committed to destroying a single man: in this case, the President of the United States. For that, there seems to be only one recent historical analogy -- and it is an uncomfortable one for many of Mr. Starr's opponents. In the early 1960's, Attorney General Robert Kennedy set the Justice Department on a similarly ruthless crusade against Jimmy Hoffa, unleashing the F.B.I. and other investigators to uncover anything that would allow the Government to "get" the controversial teamster leader. Hoffa was finally convicted on relatively minor charges of jury tampering and fraud. Mr. Starr's investigation, like Kennedy's, has been unconstrained by the normal standards of criminal prosecution. The Office of Independent Counsel was created as a (theoretically) disinterested body, intended to absolve officials of wrongdoing as often as to convict them. Mr. Starr has transformed it into the equivalent of a Federal racketeering investigation against a mob leader -- the kind of investigation that the crusade against Hoffa helped legitimize. Even admirers of Kennedy, of whom I am one, have found his relentless assault on a single man troubling, even frightening. In the end, however, Mr. Starr's place in history will largely depend on the results of his efforts. To justify his critics' placement of him on the roster of great and largely reviled inquisitors -- from Torquemada to the Salem witch trial judges to McCarthy -- Mr. Starr would have to succeed in driving Mr. Clinton from office, and in making his kind of crusade at least a temporary norm of American life. But it is now all but certain that Mr. Clinton will survive Mr. Starr's assault. Moreover, it seems probable that Mr. Starr's unpopularity will doom the independent counsel statute to extinction. Indeed, the Starr investigation's principal result may well be to persuade the nation to shun such heavyhanded uses of official power in the future. In that case, Kenneth Starr will be remembered by history -- to the limited degree he is remembered at all -- as a strange, aberrant and ultimately ineffectual figure, most notable for his repudiation by the American public. In (mild) defense of Robert Kennedy, Jimmy Hoffa was arguably close enough to a Mafia boss to justify the kind of prosecutorial tactics used against organized crime and drug lords. Clinton? Well, if you believe he's the antichrist, I guess it all makes sense. If you believe he's just this guy, who didn't make up the rules of politics as a blood sport, but who has some skill in the area, you wonder. At any rate, I think Toynbee's sort of out of favor in historical circles, and the west will do just fine regardless.

To: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (32590)	2/7/1999 5:44:00 AM
From: MacCoy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

His actions were correct. JCD:"I think that Clinton standing up to the political challenge of the Paula Jones legal system as a political weapon crowd demonstrated a lot of character." BOB Lse-tao:"If he really had any character he would have told the truth up front and then challenged the "Paula Jones legal system as a political weapon crowd" to do anything about it. If he had told the truth up front, it really would have been "just about sex." If he had told the truth up front he would have been the clear winner in all this and he would never have been impeached. But he didn't tell the truth. One can only assume that this is because he has no character." His actions were correct: 1st, reading the supreme court decision that allowed this mockery of a case, we see they fully expected a short courttime. This was the most effective way to avoid compounding their errors, and prolonging and appealing the "short" case. 2nd. The affair made no difference to the case because such sex is excluded from the powers of the Constitution to even be gazed upon or considered. You've heard of pleading the 5th? Why does no one plead the 9th and 10th? Why? because to the Constituion they do not exist. To testify would be making things up--things that aren't there [to the consstitution and the federal courts] To volunteer this information, out of the cold, would be to extend the power of the Constitution--that is an odd suggestion for a power we all have as individuals under the law! 3rd. He has done all but call in an air strike to keep Presidential sex from disturbing the minds of the American Public. Bold adversarial admissions do not serve this prudent and decent purpose. 4th. Bill was elected by voters who typically do not press a showdown. Any other method is tried first. The peacemakers. Bill's responses were completely in character, and of character, in avoiding destructive situations with no real prospect for good. A Man high in Character, sublime in wisdom, keen in learning, and discriminatory in his cigars. Lets vote Lady Clinton in next.

To: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (32590)	2/7/1999 9:40:00 AM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 67261

Sorry to see you go Bob. JLA

To: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (32590)	2/7/1999 2:17:00 PM
From: pezz	Respond to of 67261

I ....predict...........you'll be back! .....This place is like a drug! pez

To: Bob Lao-Tse who wrote (32590)	2/7/1999 6:06:00 PM
From: jimpit	Respond to of 67261

My dear BLT, I, too, am saddened by your departure. I've truly enjoyed reading your posts. I've admired your keen ability to present your point of view in a manner that was precise in it's detail and breathtaking in it's architecture. You will be missed. Godspeed and take care... Jim