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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hmaly who wrote (133619)	2/26/2001 2:24:53 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570140

"Why would all of those scandals push you into Bill's camp" Because most of them were false, even clearly so. Even the stuff that was true usually turned out to be blown out of proportion. I quite frankly don't care about the women in his life, explaining that activity to a woman like Hillary is all the punishment he needs. Harrassing someone does not make me a fan of the harrassers. As far as the non-cooperation, I have a streak of that myself, so I have some sympathy. "In fact, most people with zipper problems would have been fired in disgrace immediately. " In general, yes. But CEO's with zipper problems seem to stay around for some reason... "What is different here is not that the pardons are any worse than any of Bill's other scandals" Understand this, with the evidence that is out there, I don't care for many of the pardons he made. But, given the history of what has happened, it would not surprise me if the information out there is distorted and/or even made up. Offhand, I cannot think of a reasonable basis for the pardons, but on the otherhand, a President doesn't need any. If it can be proven there was some quid pro quo or even that some money changed hands and wound up in Bill's pockets, then go get him. But without that, I have to feel that is is just some more of that baseless, unfair and purely partisan bashing that has been going on. The issue is fairness. If the standard is to pillory all politicians for their sexual weaknesses, fine. Why wasn't Newt raked over the coals for his long-term affair while he was Speaker? There was another one, was it Lott? And if you want to drag in those business dealings that might look to be shady...

To: hmaly who wrote (133619)	2/26/2001 2:55:50 PM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570140

Harry, Most of the Presidents had zipper problems, including Thomas Jefferson and Dwight Eisenhower. Should they have been "fired in disgrace"? Scumbria

To: hmaly who wrote (133619)	2/26/2001 7:13:46 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570140

H. RE:"What is different here is not that the pardons are any worse than any of Bill's other scandals. What is different is that the dems. have abandoned Bill, and have joined the rep. in condemning the pardons. The Dems have decided to sacrifice Bill; not because of the illegality, but because of the embarrassment, to promote their own interests. If the Dems had supported Bill, and if Bill had the bully pulpit like he did when president; Bill would skate free and clear again." The Dems and the media seem to have abandoned Bill because Bill no longer has the "bully pulpit". With the Bully pulpit, Clinton could release spin and keep them at bay. He no longer can do it... Jim