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: Machaon who wrote (8428)	10/9/1998 12:55:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<The main issue, right now, is whether the Republican Party can subvert the Constitution and remove a democratically elected President of an opposing political party>> I'd like to clarify one point - the Constitution obviously provides for impeachment, so voting in favor of hearings, or actually impeaching a President is definitely Constitutional, even assuming that the Senate had 70 Republicans in it, all of whom vote to impeach (thereby bypassing the original Constitutional check on partisanship). However, legal doesn't mean right. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. The process was put in place for a reason, and using the rules for any other reason would be wrong. I am not trying to define what that original reason was, and I'm not commenting on whether the current situation would be right or wrong. It's just that when I read things like "subvert the Constitution" it makes me defensive. I believe it is possible for an impeachment hearing to be legal, but still go against the original intent. Is that what you are describing, and if so, in what way would the current process go against the intent of the Constitution?

To: Machaon who wrote (8428)	10/9/1998 12:56:00 PM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Robert: "But, personally, I support Clinton because I feel that he has been one of the best Presidents that we have had for a long time." Like they say, ignorance is the mother of admiration. Mr. K.

To: Machaon who wrote (8428)	10/9/1998 1:11:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<Well, it's hard to say CLinton lied on this issue because he didn't say which God he was referring to. Man has envisaged many different gods.>> You seem to question that it would be the one referenced by the church he goes to. I think we call that one the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. Often overlooked when pointing to the "many different gods." you speak of. <<Do you really believe that or did you wake up this morning wanting to annoy Michelle ?>> Michelle has made it clear in the past that she knows he is a lying and that he is a hypocrite and it doesn't matter to her. <<The main issue, right now, is whether the Republican Party can subvert the Constitution and remove a democratically elected President of an opposing political party. This issue is much bigger than the issue of a few fetuses being thrown in a dumpster. >> That's exactly what I meant. Your issue is the Fear Cheer Leader issue. We don't trust Bill. We know he is lying. But we are afraid of what would happen if we open the door to change. Bob, our system was established and has been successful primarily due to its adaptability. It is changeable, we are supposed to continue to revise and improve it, we are the change agents. Bill's fat carcus is constipating the highest executive office of the most powerful nation in the world. What are you afraid of, broaden your vision from this partison fear of, guess who's coming to dinner. Bill Clinton is a liar. The office of Presidency of the United States deserves to be honored. Let's do something about it.

To: Machaon who wrote (8428)	10/9/1998 2:16:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

You know I have made this observation before but for some reason the conservatives, or RRs or whatever here seem to have a HUGE problem with anybody that has a different set of beliefs. How do I know this is true? Because my name comes up in all kinds of third party posts. Why does Michelle think this blah blah blah. I would never send a msg to you Robert Barry to discuss what brees or Who me thinks, other than to comment on some post you made to one of them that is funny or rude etc. Say for example someone here did something I find repulsive - ex. cruelty to animals etc. I would be bothered by it sure, but I wouldnt dwell on their activities. If anybody can shed some light on this obsession with policing and evaluating others views and lives that I see prevalent in the conservatives here, please tell me what their motivation is. A control thing maybe? Insecurity with regards to their own expectations of living up to some biblical code?

To: Machaon who wrote (8428)	10/9/1998 2:23:00 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 67261

<<A control thing maybe? Insecurity with regards to their own expectations of living up to some biblical code?>> <<the conservatives, or RRs or whatever here seem to have a HUGE problem with anybody that has a different set of beliefs>> <<I would never send a msg to you Robert Barry to discuss what brees or Who me thinks, other than to comment on some post you made to one of them that is funny or rude etc.>> Were these three comments really from the same post to Robert Barry? Poor Michelle.

To: Machaon who wrote (8428)	10/9/1998 6:35:00 PM
From: Who, me?	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

<<But, personally, I support Clinton because I feel that he has been one of the best Presidents that we have had for a long time.>> Robert, since Clinton has had a total of two cabinet meetings this year, one to deny that he "ever had sex with that woman" and one to tell them that he lied to them, isn't it one of the best Presidents cabinets* that we have had for a long time?* And, since he's been on almost 100 fundraising trips in almost 300 days, doesn't it make you wonder who's been running the government? Just wondering......