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: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (36186)	2/28/1999 9:46:00 AM
From: Bob Lao-Tse	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Hi everyone, I'm back! There are a lot of things that need to be fixed in this society as I stated before, but right now I'm feeling sort of testy, so here I am, ready to get bitter and abusive again. Hey Johnathan, you're new, huh? You're no Schuh, but that's probably a good thing. Let's talk about the independent prosecutor, okay? I too believe that the statute shouldn't be renewed, but don't think for a minute that that will protect the sorry ass of the next Dem to egregiously violate the public trust, 'cuz it won't. All the statute does is provide a sort of pre-approved office, and getting rid of the statute won't get rid of the office, only the pre-approved status of the office. It sure makes me laugh that the law created by the Dems in a feeble effort to get the Republicans came back around and bit them in the ass, and now all of a sudden it's a bad law. Kind of like the rules of evidence that allow questions about past sexual behavior in harassment suits. And harassment suits. Once more, for the record: Bill Clinton swore an oath to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" and then he violated that oath. For this reason, he got his fat butt impeached. Whine all you want about out of control prosecutors, it doesn't change this simple fact. He lied, he got caught, he got punished. The fact that he wasn't removed is more of a reflection of lack of will and duplicity in the Senate than it is of anything vaguely resembling "innocence" on the part of the POTUS. Try this for a new children's story: "...and George Washington said 'I cannot tell a lie, there is no relationship between me and that Cherry tree.'" -BLT

To: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (36186)	2/28/1999 2:35:00 PM
From: lazarre	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Yeah, I second that notion. Under no circumstances do I want the OIC statute tossed. Uh uh. See, when H. Clinton wins the NY senate seat in 2000, it will be her seat to lose forever and ever. And for you reactionary dingbats who were hyperventillating all during this ill conceived and even more inept overthrow of, not just one, but 2 elections, it gets even better. Cause by the time HC ( I pray she stays f$^#^#%^#g hopping made by then ) takes her seat as the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee around 2004-06 it will be about the same time we begin to round up all the schemers , connivers, liars, benders and breakers of law and their media flunkies--- from Starrbarr through those paid Scaife shills that bluster on the chatbox shows. No,no, no.... lets wait a few more years before we toss the OIC out...why waste it when it still can be put to good use. L.