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 : Should Clinton resign? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dougjn who wrote (336)	9/14/1998 10:11:00 PM
From: Coop	Respond to of 567

I hope the President remembers this quote... "Yes, the President should resign. He has lied to the American people, time and time again, and betrayed their trust. Since he has admitted guilt, there is no reason to put the American people through an impeachment. He will serve absolutely no purpose in finishing out his term, the only possible solution is for the President to save some dignity and resign." From 12th Congressional District Hopeful William Jefferson Clinton during the Nixon investigations.

To: dougjn who wrote (336)	9/14/1998 11:00:00 PM
From: Jim B	Respond to of 567

well, I'd rather lead more towards being TOO strict than not... but I wasn't involved with all the facts... maybe these people had been warned before.. it's not like management is gonna come out and share with us all the reasons why... I don't even recall them saying why the were let go.. other than to remind us all to review our company handbooks on sexual harassment and other such policies.. your point is understood... and I'm not entirely disagreeing with you.. there's a balance... but I'm sure you're not ADVOCATING that if you had sex multiple times at your office.. or engaged in some sort of form of sexual intimacy.. and got fired over it that you'd bring a lawsuit against your employer... so basically, you're agreeing that Clinton (if it's true he committed these sexual acts on company/governmental property/white house offices) then he should be let go... so we'll agree on that issue... but thing is.. it's not really up to any of us here at this point... just have to wait and see what facts present themselves.. and NOPE I didn't vote for him... simply because of his character and views/platform that I found to go against the beliefs I hold dear to my heart and that I try to incorporate in my family... albeit, I'm no more righteous than the President nor any other person... I'm a person who truly has a need for a Savior in my life.. and I do the best I can to be a good father, husband and person. But we all make mistakes... good thing I can't remember the last time I accidentally slipped and allowed some woman 1/3rd my age to perform oral sex on me 11 times or so after having committed dozens of affairs and showing no sign of changing my ways... seriuosly, I've done some tragic things in my life... and I've paid for them... wasn't happy about it... but I learned.. and I'd like to say I am a changed person with a renewed heart and that even at 23.. I look at the world just a little different than those who choose to accept the world's indifference to the immoral behaviors society displays... we do what we can to make a difference... to be a light in the darkness... I'm thankful for what I have... I hope the President can be thankful for what he has... and stop desiring and lusting after everything he doesn't. "To have and to hold... To cherish and honor... til death do us part"... maybe someone could fax that to the president.. What legacy is Bill Clinton handing down to our children... any of whom could grow up to be president someday? jim

To: dougjn who wrote (336)	9/14/1998 11:03:00 PM
From: Redman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 567

You are missing the point. I do not have a problem with Bubba claiming all the rights and priviledges that you and I can claim. My problem lies with the fact that he was claiming special priviledges only associated with the office of the presidency. He was claiming these and testing these for a personal problem. This is abuse of power as "blowjobs" by monica do not constitute a national security issue. The right protects the President and his advisors from answering questions when the security of the nation or national interests are at stake------again not blowjobs. It is very conceited, as it was for Nixon, to claim these precious priviledges for this. On another note, what kind of person allows his friends and trusted employees to go through 7 months of hiring and paying lawyers and testifying, knowing all along he is in the wrong and could put closure to all the end running by Starr. This is the same shithead who wants to stop the "personal destruction" but tried to frame a embezzlement charge on Dale from the Travel office, who had to pay bookoos to get off. He got off in 30 minutes when the trial started. Let me ask you a question: Was it not in the back of your mind why he sent missiles into Sudan and Afghan at that point in time ?? Although it could have been the right call(COULD have been), I still think every American will continue to question everything he does. You need trust in a leader, he does not have it. Also, because of this Bubba can never again speak to kids about morality and doing what is right. How can we have a president who cannot speak to these things which SHOULD make up the fabric of our society and country???? green

To: dougjn who wrote (336)	9/15/1998 10:08:00 AM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 567

Dougjn: "What you describe is utterly outrageous, unfair, and unsupportable." Part of your response indicates you are a practicing attorney; given that, your amazement as reflected in the above statement is strange. You should know as well as anyone in business that sexual harassment situations are viewed through the eyes of the offended, not the offender. The vast majority of situations never make it into the press - most companies quietly, internally take action to preclude management's exposure to litigation by an "offended" party. If handled correctly, the "offended" person agrees not to pursue action against the company and the "offender" is faced with movement to another position, or, depending on policy, is given the option to resign gracefully or face exposure and firing. Given that you're an attorney and an "active" investor, haven't you seen "moral turpitude" clauses in senior executive employment contracts? This is part of the uncomfortable dichotomy between the White House's position and the huge number of people who work in business where such behavior would be immediately addressed by the removal of the offending boss. Mr. K.