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: John Lacelle who wrote (9645)	10/15/1998 3:53:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 67261

>>> It does not sound like he won the hearts and minds of the people to me. You should read the constitution yourself, I don't think you have. If you win the election legally, you win the election. That is taken to be final. >>> are you aware that Congress is going to examine 15 counts of impeachment, and we still have not gotten the Whitewater, Travel- gate, and FBI file reports from Ken Starr. <<< Wrong again. Newt and Hyde (an adulterer, by the way, and one who divorced his wife on her death bed) tried to pump up the total to fifteen with fluff, but this week Hyde had to pull back on that because it was just fluff. It looks now like they are going for two, because the other 13 weren't offenses, never happened, or aren't impeachable even arguably. Not that what they are going for holds much water. As for the rest of it, Starr had 5 years and came up dry on the Clintons. That's why it's all about penises now, rather than offenses of substance. They just couldn't nail them with anything else, hard as Starr tried. Unlike Gingritch, where the 4 million dollar 'book deal' was blatant, and he had to apologize for lying to the ethics committee. The demos may not be cleaner, but they seem to be smarter. :-) Cheers, Chaz

To: John Lacelle who wrote (9645)	10/15/1998 4:10:00 PM
From: Borzou Daragahi	Respond to of 67261

You say that impeachment would "subvert the will of the people". No, my friend, I said that foregoing impeachment and instead "evicting" the president from the White House, as brees (I assume somewhat jocularly) suggested, would constitute a coup d'etat. Did you know that 55% of the voters in 1992 voted for someone other than Bill Clinton? In 1996 he improved his percentage to 49.6% I believe the same argument could be made against Reagan in 1980. But in any case, why stop there? Half and sometimes more than half the eligible voters don't even participate. I view that as an argument against the mandate of BOTH parties. I'm no rabid Clinton partisan. Not even a registered Democrat. How much more crime and corruption and sleeze can you take from this guy before you finally admit that Bill Clinton should never have become President at all? I'll refer you to my earlier post: exchange2000.com Just for fun, read this one: exchange2000.com :-)