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: pezz who wrote (667)	8/24/1998 11:27:00 PM
From: alan w	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I do admire your sand pezz. I also think you're fighting a losing battle. But, it's not over till the fat lady sings. Best regards, alan w

To: pezz who wrote (667)	8/24/1998 11:45:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 67261

>>I believe reasonable men and women can disagree. That leaves no room for you.

To: pezz who wrote (667)	8/25/1998 12:29:00 AM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

You are the epitome of cool, Pezz. The only rational human being in a sea of wackos. Im going to bookmark your name, but when you leave make sure they take the word "SANITY" out of the title of this thread. Michelle

To: pezz who wrote (667)	8/25/1998 7:24:00 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Pezz, you've admitted that Clinton is a liar. His statement, "I did not have sex ..." cost this country 7 months and $7 million. Even you must admit that. But did you consider that he can be impeached for that without having committed a criminal act? From Geoge Will's article: Twenty-four years ago a study written (with the participation of Hillary Rodham) for the House committee considering impeachment of Richard Nixon said: "From the comments of the Framers and their contemporaries, the remarks of delegates to the state ratifying conventions, and the removal power debate in the First Congress, it is apparent that the scope of impeachment was not viewed narrowly." It argued that the pedigree of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" pertains not to criminal law, not just to "crimes of a strictly legal character." Rather it has "a more enlarged operation." Its proper objects include offenses "growing out of personal misconduct" and a "wide range of . . . noncriminal offenses." Thus the articles of impeachment indicted Nixon for, among many other things, "making false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States" about his misdeeds. I'd say Clinton's public lying is cause for impeachment.

To: pezz who wrote (667)	8/25/1998 9:58:00 AM
From: wallacestevens	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Okay, I'll take the bait. Coward? I don't think that's it. I, too, enjoy debating with thoughtful people from the right who actually respond to the arguments posted and present coherent points of their own. But when it gets to the point that people (like Zoltan, HiTech) just spew, who wants to be barfed on? This thread was great when it was based on real ideas, a lot of fun for both sides, I think. If intelligent back-and-forth reappears here, I'll jump back in.

To: pezz who wrote (667)	8/25/1998 6:01:00 PM
From: cc rogers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Pezz....how right you are! If there was not CIVIL disagreement, we would not, by definition be a democracy. A major point I have not seen addressed here: (but, I admit having read only about 1/7th of the posts)....is that we have been a TWO party republic for most of our 222 years of existence. Every once in a while, a third party kicks in and muddies the waters, and no one is happy. Idiot Ross Perot (who practically lives in my back yard) did us this huge favor during the past two elections....so we have a weak president to begin with, that is in without a true concensus. I have confessed to being a strong fiscal Republican....but I'd put up an abortion clinic on every corner if I had the funds...I find that the middle ground is more thoughtful and level-headed group...badly needed to off-set the two extremes. With Clinton's plurality, little has gotten done. That isn't all bad....Greenspan REALLY runs the economy, and when misinformed people give credit to Clinton for it, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It so vividly expressed the averageing down...the dumbing of the American people...and it makes me fear for our future. We desperately need a STATESMAN...not a politician for our next president....who can be all that??? We need a moral leader, if we are indeed, to right our own moral attitudes. We need change...but it must come from the hearts and minds of ernest people...not zealots, not screamers.....and, as usual, the most temperate and sane are never the ones to organize. What are we to do?????