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: Wizzer who wrote (13072)	4/8/1998 1:41:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

>>Purething wrote: "Who in the Republican party is clean enough to lead the impeachment charge against Clinton?" That was a nonsensical statement and that standard has never been applied to or stopped the Dems, so why should it be applied to or stop the Republicans? When the Dems were in charge such moral avatars as Ted Kennedy regularly pronounced judgment on his superiors. The Constitution requires Congress to investigate Executive malfeasance and render judgment when necessary. Clinton will be on trial, not the Congress - unless Clinton & Cronies succeed in sullying Congress the way they have sullied the Presidency and anyone that dares tell the truth. The Clintonistas throw mud because they have no truth in their arsenal. What the media have let them get away with is outrageous and would never have been permitted had the President been Republican. Actually, I doubt a Republican would even have dared. >>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. I could name several thousand better people for the job than Clinton - he's a national disgrace gone global. Excepting Gore, the greater challenge would be naming anyone worse.

To: Wizzer who wrote (13072)	4/8/1998 3:03:00 AM
From: Earl Risch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

"I don't think anyone could name a better person for President" I couldn't disagree with you more. Perhaps, for the sake of your stability, we should never have had the Revolutionary War. ER

To: Wizzer who wrote (13072)	4/8/1998 4:39:00 AM
From: Jack Clarke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Wisam, You said: "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." I would personally rather have any one of the first twenty people I meet at the shopping mall, or a random selection from the telephone book. At least the odds are that the person would be honest. Mr. Clinton's boorish behavior toward women just confirms his lack of basic decency and character. He is a national embarrassment, and I do not think he has been such a good president. His patent phoniness just angers me. All style, no substance. Hold finger to wind, give pseudosincere speech on "hot item", bite lip at appropriate spots -- the people think he's a saint. And Ronald Reagan was the professional actor? Clinton deserves the Oscar. It is correct that the Republicans are corrupt as well, but there has not been an administration in our history so corrupt as the Clinton one. I admit to a personal animosity toward the president and will likely "waste" my vote on a third party candidate next time. Jack