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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: art slott who wrote (287)	8/21/1998 11:36:00 AM
From: j_b	Respond to of 67261

<<If you have read my posts I have already stated that he lied and he should have come clean when the scandal broke>> Actually, I have read your posts. I concede your position. It's just infuriating watching everyone try to use the words to prove their positions. Both sides of this discussion are right - Clinton did bad things and there should be consequences. The question is, what should the consequences be. We don't cut off hands for stealing in this country, and it's fairly obvious that we don't consider jail time appropriate for oral sex between two consenting people of different sexes. Different standards do apply for poor people and rich people, powerful and powerless, etc. Okay - here's the challenge - assume Clinton won't resign, and that Congress won't have evidence of anything other than the Paula Jones deposition issues. Is that enough to impeach the President? I am obviously not a Clinton fan, but I don't think this is enough to remove him from office. In the past it might have been - people have been impeached from judgeships for swearing - but not with todays standards. What that says about todays standards is another issue.

To: art slott who wrote (287)	8/21/1998 12:04:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I don't like Bill Clinton, never have. He is not to be trusted. He lacks good judgment. In my view, he doesn't deserve to be president. HOWEVER, if he goes down on this sole matter, i.e, obstruction related to a sexual relationship, I personally will feel cheated. Unfulfilled. With all of the shady operations he appears to have been involved in, if all they have is sex, I will be very upset. Ken Starr, tell us you have more than this sexual obstruction case. Please!