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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (126679)	2/12/2001 6:08:13 PM
From: Ish	Respond to of 769667

<<but why can't we take pride in the fact that Clinton lead us through 8 peaceful years >> They're oiling the guns in Israel. Partly because Slick kept Arafat waiting during a Monica interlude. Remember the USS Cole? Pride of the Navy? Big hole in her side on a Norwegian salvage ship? Pay back for bombing a Sudanese pill factory, that was blown up because of DNA on a blue dress. Dead US boys being drug through the streets of Mogadishu? Waco which then cause Oklahoma City? Bosnia? Kosovo? So many missiles being fired the US Armed Forces were cannibalizing cruise missiles to have enough to keep going?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (126679)	2/12/2001 6:33:58 PM
From: microhoogle!	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

I hope that Clinton is nailed on Rich affair. Now that he is out of office, he should be punished for his misdeeds both while in office and now that he is out of office. Rich case is indefensible (atleast based on what I have heard). Having said all that, I like him as a president.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (126679)	2/12/2001 11:00:34 PM
From: Little Joe	Respond to of 769667

JF: "As a dem, I would think that you would have seen through all hatred of Clinton and dismissed all of this stuff as primarily a sex scandal...the guy lied about sex....who wouldn't under similar circumstances??" I understand that there is an irrational hatred of Clinton by the right and they are not motivated by the purest of intentions. I have no doubt that if the shoe were on the other foot, they would be defending him, much as many on the right defended Nixon far beyond the point where it was obvious that he was guilty. However, the main point of my post was that he is hurting the democratic party with all of his foolishness. I believe he was one of three factors which had they not existed resulted in Bush's victory. They are in no particular order: 1. Clinton's scandals 2. Gore's incompetence 3. Nader's candidacy We could have one if any of the above had been eliminated. As for the future, I do not think the party should defend what he has done. The cumulative weight of this guy on our party will sink us if we continue to support him. How many more explanations, half-truths, no truths, sleazy acts and incredibly suspicious is it going to take to understand that he is not good for the party. I yield. Little joe