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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (2871)	9/15/1998 3:29:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Respond to of 67261

>>Republican candidates should distance themselves from it,...<< Oh yeah, that's rich....you mean like the Dems are distancing themselves from their president? bp

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (2871)	9/15/1998 3:39:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>OK you have illustrated an interesting point. Do you know I think Clinton should step down? I think hes an ineffective leader at this point and he has to go. I also am close to being convinced that filegate existed and I dont like that at all, at which point if Starr could have proven that I would have wanted Clinton out as much as any of you.< Well. Firstly, the point is not only interesting, it is reasonable. Secondly, Clinton should be impeached regardless of "filegate". >But the fact that you cannot or will not agree that this Starr report over the internet was inappropriate and damaging to your case against Clinton is making you look like an anti-Clinton hysteric.< I will concede this: I am most certainly anti-Clinton, and justifiably so. Whether I am hysterical about it is a subjective determination. It is perhaps, and I dare say likely, the case that I see the abhorrent future ramifications to our republic should we not protect ourselves from what Clinton represents, and that this is why I am so moved by our failure to eliminate this presidency. >You have got to be kidding! Dont rationalize the blunder that is this Starr report!< Madam, I do not "kid". If you insist on claiming the report a blunder, you must support the claim with facts. Simply claiming "he shouldn't have put that thing on the internet" or "he didn't need that sex stuff" or "people love tabloid journalism" etc. are no arguments. They sound silly, and imply you are a pro-Clinton hysteric. I can support my points with reason. You, madam, cannot. >You conservatives had him - you had Clinton you really did, until this report came out. Starr let his personal dislike of Clinton (as well as some perverse fascination with Clintons sex life) get in the way of his judgement on how to present the issue to the public.< The point is not about "having" Clinton. It is about telling the truth. Starr did this, and he did it with fabulous success. A note: I said earlier Starr put the report on the internet. It was Congress that did it. I apologize to our special prosecutor, a noble man indeed. >I understand he is a lawyer but a lawyer in the political arena has to be concerned with the political ramifications of everything.< A lawyer with principle merely needs concern himself with the truth, the >>>>WHOLE<<< truth (don't miss this, madam), and nothing but the truth. >If I were you, I would just admit this report was a tres catastrophe and regroup and move on.< Unfortunately, you are not me. >I think the republican candidates should distance themselves from it, not embrace it, it was a foolish move.< The report reveals the comprehensive dishonor of a man who claims he is worthy of honor. The report is a fabulously successful document. Were Clinton innocent, the report would have contained nothing. Do not beat up the report, beat up your lying, filthy President who, concerned only with his tenure, is about to put the country through hell. (But a hell I will gladly endure, simply to get to the truth).