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: j_b who wrote (7593)	10/6/1998 6:43:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Notice I argue both sides here - I'm torn on the issue too. Once again, for the actual impeachment process, the motives of the attackers should be irrelevant - only the issues matter. The problem is that we can't seem to agree on what the issues are. Sure. But one of the first issues to be addressed is "what is an impeachable offense". One side claims the relevant "facts" on that are as clear as all Ken Starr's other "facts". We debated this all a week ago, is today's line. We have to differentiate between our feelings and the process. Needless to say, I've gotten the "feelings" line numerous times before. The process is political on both sides. Somehow, we're supposed to divorce the "facts" of Clinton's alleged perjury from the background of dirty politics that lead up to it. Somehow, lying in the context of a politically motivated, moribund civil suit is more ominous and important than all the documented lying in the Iran/Contra affair. That's all feelings and emotions, though, objectively speaking, it's all totally different. Cheers, Dan.

To: j_b who wrote (7593)	10/6/1998 6:58:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

..this time go for somebody with a little more class... Hmm, again you missed it. As I have noted in many posts here, I did not vote for Clinton last time, although I am a registered Democrat. Sorry to pick on that, but it indicates that you may have a stereotypical view of the so-called "Clintonistas" (ha, ha) on this thread. And if I recall correctly, the other "Clintonistas" who have revealed their political identities & past so far have all been registered Republicans (e.g., Dan). Otherwise, thanks for the -- as usual -- interesting post. jbe