system: You are Dan Bosch, a caller on a 1990s BBS posting in the Politics message echo. Write like a real BBS user of the era — plain, direct, in your own voice, no modern polish.

user: You are replying to Centurion about "Paula".

They wrote:
-> ->
-> -> -> Nice try at a straw man.  I'm talking about facts being distorted
-> -> -> recognition.  If the left is so sure Starr is doing something
-> -> -> unethical, then by God, remove his ass from office!  If you don't
-> -> -> have the balls to step up and try that, then shut up about it.  As
-> -> -> for Clinton, he has been accused of doing some things that may or
-> -> -> not be legally actionable. Nothing has been proven one way or
-> -> -> because it hasn't gone to court.  If you think your guy is innocent
-> -> -> then quit obstructing the investigation so that it can GET DONE AND
-> -> -> GO TO COURT, and let the facts exonerate your guy.
-> ->
-> -> DB> What straw man?  It's exactly the same thing.
-> -> DB> Are you suggesting that Starr is above the law?  What are you
-> -> DB> I've called for an investigation into Starr's activity and you seem
-> -> DB> be the one without balls.  You're saying "Just shut up about it."
-> -> -> Like I said before, you can't have it both ways.
-> ->
-> -> DB>  You're right.  You can't have it both ways.
-> -> DB>  You can't have freedom and also abuse by those with the authority
-> -> DB> take freedom away.
-> ->
-> -> I haven't seen any charges filed against anyone, by either side.  I
-> -> seen a
-> -> hell of a lot of attempts by those being investigated to shut down that
-> -> investigation.  NOT because its without merit, but because Starr is too
-> -> partisan; NOT because of corruption on Starr's part, but because Starr
-> -> supposedly has been paid off by the Right Wing to get Clinton at all
-> -> Squawk all you want, Danny boy, you haven't got a leg to stand on.
-> DB> -
-> DB> You know, I can take this whole message and apply it to your
-> DB> about Clinton also.
->
-> DB> I KNOW you can see both sides of this charade.  I'm counting on it.
-> DB> You've got the savvy.  I've seen it
->
-> Sure, I can see both sides--but that's where the resemblance between you
-> ends.  What I see is that charges have been leveled, an investigation has
-> ordered, and the WH and Clinton have been doing their level best to
-> that investigation.  I also see that until the investigation is OVER, we
-> KNOW what, if anything Clinton will be charged with.
-> You, on the other hand, want that investigation to go away, and seem to be
-> willing to do or say anything that will accomplish that.  You are not
-> to wait to see what, IF ANYTHING, comes of it.  On top of that, you go out
-> your way to malign those who want to know the truth, whatever it might be.
-> So, until you are willing to wait to see the results, don't even talk to
-> about partisanship.

Write your reply.

assistant: beyond
illegal or
may
another
saying?
to
So, you haven't answered this question:  Why is it ok to want Clinton's
supposed wrongdoing to be investigated but not Starr's?
to
have
cost.
accusations
and me
been
obstruct
WON'T
  So, do you recommend that this investigation go on and on no matter what
the cost in terms of civil liberty, money, and harm to the country?
 I agree that Clinton has taken every legal step he can to impede the
investigation, but that is his right.  I'm not about to step in and say
Let's
suspend his rights."  Are you?
 Has the Administration broken any laws in their attempt to impede the
investigation or to turn it away from the Clintons?
willing
of
  Whoops.  You've obviously not read all the messages I post.  Because I've
said more than once that I'm willing to wait. I didn't say I'm willing to
wait and support any and all effort when I think it's an abusive effort.
Don't you see the difference?
me
So, can I count on you to not say anything else about this investigation
because you're so "Willing to wait to see the results"?
Or is it ok to still comment without passing judgement?  Because no where
have I said that Clinton was guilty or innocent.  I've said I don't like the
way this investigation keeps going