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: jbe who wrote (7499)	10/6/1998 2:07:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

<< very interesting post, but "let's be honest," not quite fair.>> You are absolutely correct. I am frustrated by the apparent inability of people on either side to actually address the issues at hand without resorting to name calling, blame-shifting, or just sheer avoidance of the issue. What I was trying to do was to get people to really look at why they hold the positions they do. IMHO, many of the people supporting Clinton really don't - they support his policies. That's okay if they're honest about it. By the same token, many of the people screaming about how evil BC is don't really care about his morals - they just want him gone. Neither of these positions is appropriate for an impeachment hearing. An example from your post - <<1) I distrust the motives, the political agenda, and the tactics of the gung-ho anti-Clintonite groups even more>> No offense, but the motives of the anti's are irrelevant. The issue is not their motives, but BC's actions and motives. If we can't stick to the actual issues, the entire debate ends up where you pointed to in the rest of your post - a discussion about policies. Impeachment absolutely must not ever be used to resolve policy disputes (in my humble, quiet, soft-spoken, understated opinion)!!!!!!!!! It seems that we always end up discussing the religious right or the radical left, instead of what Clinton did and how it actually might affect this country. As I said in my post, Monicagate is a no starter when it comes to long-term effects on the country, and so should never have gotten this far. It has, so it must be dealt with. Congress should hold hearings, and if Monica is the only issue being discussed, it should be dropped. There I go again, pontificating. Sorry about that. <<I note that some anti-Clinton groups/individuals believe that his views/policies in themselves are impeachable>> As I said above, my reading of the impeachment history is that policy is absolutely not impeachable unless it crosses a line into some sort of treason or unconstitutional activity. Please note that nowhere in the Constitution is lying or sex (depending on how you define it) prohibited <g>. <<What I see as a possibility is an endless (and inevitably sleazy) talkfest that will polarize the electorate still further, sap the authority of both the Presidency and the Congress still further -- and result in nothing. >> I agree completely. Since the process will not stop, and the polarization will continue, I would encourage Clinton to resign - I say that somewhat in jest, as I think the same process would continue if he did resign. We need the hearings and we need resolution. <<I don't think that the dump-Clinton camp realizes just how crucial this is.>> You were discussing foreign issues here - the anti's do realize it, but their solution is for Clinton to resign. After all, he did screw up. Why should the solution be that he gets to benefit even though he screwed up (or down or sideways or whatever). You get my drift, I'm sure. Everyone agrees that foreign policy will suffer while this process continues, but the two sides disagree on how to resolve the conflict. To all on this board - if I got carried away and offended anyone, I apologize. That was never my intent. I am just so VERY frustrated, not with Clinton, but with the American people.