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 : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Intrepid1 who wrote (13051)	4/7/1998 6:50:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Very nice twist. We can't impeach Clinton or perhaps even question his fitness because no one else on the Republican side is "pure". That is ridiculous. I'm no great lover of the Republicans in the House and Senate. Their leadership on these scandals is noticeably non-existent. The fact that maybe some Republicans, even most of them, are just as repulsive as Clinton does not justify his total lack of fitness for the office he holds. If you say that calling it as you see them is "Clinton bashing" so be it. I'm a Clinton basher. As to the stock market, I doubt there will even be a blip. The path of succession is clear, Gore couldn't be any worse than Clinton and how does a Clinton demise change the fundamentals in this market? That's no reason not to expect our President to be someone we can look up to.

To: Intrepid1 who wrote (13051)	4/7/1998 10:25:00 PM
From: James R. Barrett	Respond to of 20981

>>"Why do you and your Clinton Bashers want this scenario to occur? It is unproductive and could be very bad for the stock market."<< The ONLY thing that matters in OUR lifetime is the DOW. He who upsets the DOW shall burn in the flames of Hell for all eternity. Jim (keeper of the DOW)

To: Intrepid1 who wrote (13051)	4/8/1998 12:58:00 AM
From: Wizzer	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 20981

Purething wrote: "Who in the Republican party is clean enough to lead the impeachment charge against Clinton?" I agree wholeheartedly. The problem with the World these days is that it often seems choices come down to "the lesser of evils". In Canada, I am often forced to vote on this principle. Politics in the 90's is all about mud slinging and the media is in on it 100%-whatever sells papers. People will always find problems with candidates, or elected officials and that seems to be the name of the game. My opinion being from Canada: Although, I do not agree IF what Clinton "allegedly" did is true, who else could run the country right now? Clinton is by far the best choice. Everyone should think back to George Bush and Dan Quayle. If anything happened to Bush, Quayle would have been President. That was a scary thought in Canada, let alone the U.S. I have a mixed opinion about Al Gore, but I am certain he is not ready to run the country, nor is anyone from the Republican Party that I can think of. Another certainty is that this problem is only causing instability in the U.S. and the World's opinion of the U.S. It is unfortunate that political mud slinging has come to this point. A stable presidency means a stable country. Like you suggested, who would take Clinton's place? No matter what he is the best person for the job. I don't think anyone could name a better person for President.