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: Dan B. who wrote (224701)	2/3/2002 7:51:57 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

IF we are talking about a President we agree is quite adequate and qualified, and about trumped-up charges amounting to a hill of beans, brought by the opposing party, then I'd agree with what seems to be your peeve here, and any such frivolous charges likely would NOT be taken up by congress via impeachment hearings, such charges would have to wait. Given the rarity of impeachment hearings in our history, I'm quite in favor of leaving the impeachment process in the law. I guess it is clear from what you've written, that you'd be in favor of removing impeachment from the Constitution. ************************************************************************* We ARE talking about a President who was extremely intelligent & managed to keep a booming economy rolling along for quite awhile even if it was just by not doing anything to muck it up which many past presidents manged to do. I know the Republicans argue that Geo Bush Sr. put the programs in place that nurtured the booming economy; however, Pres Clinton has to get some credit for it as well. He could have replaced Alan Greenspan, but he did not(now many investors are wishing he had:) I did consider impeachment proceedings due to the fact that a sitting president lied under oath to keep his liaison a secret from his wife--a hill of beans. I believe in the impeachment process with good cause--not just the manipulation of the Special Prosecutor by the opposing party. The Special Prosecutor office should be eliminated. It's too tempting a political tool for the other side. In any event, thanks for the reasonable discussion....it's refreshing to exchange ideas without being called all sorts of interesting names. :)