SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (34920)2/22/1999 4:10:00 AM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 67261
 
It is interesting to get a look at your idiosyncratic view of political history in the last 30- some years, and I look forward to further elaboration.



To: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (34920)2/22/1999 4:28:00 AM
From: Dan B.  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 67261
 
Well, you have some reasonable thoughts there. I won't bother to defend Reagan except to say you've obviously sold him WAY short.

>>The civil trial ruling re: the President was a
disaster. Congress needs to fix that. It's bad for the future;<<

No, it's good for the future. It takes and will always take some decent evidence to get such a case heard. Not to mention money without expectation of recovery if charges are weak or trumped-up. The Supreme Court ruled that if civil cases against Presidents become a problem they'll deal with that when the time comes. Meanwhile, our President is rightfully subject to the same laws as all of us- a truly American notion. This is good. Anything less would give the office the air of a dictatorship or kingdom...and staving that off is to be welcomed. The more folks think of this issue as you are- the closer we get to a dictatorship. That Clinton fought so hard in the courts to escape Presidential accountability is probably the most potentially damaging actions he has taken as President. And he's done it to save himself from these petty sex issues the likes of which voters already forgave him for...in order to save face and money through continuing to slander women who have and likely have- told the truth.



To: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (34920)2/22/1999 4:38:00 AM
From: JBL  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 67261
 
Jonathan,

Glad to see you're not a Marxist. Considering your robotic defense of Clinton, I had assumed that you were.