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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (13810)	11/8/1998 7:12:00 AM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

You really shouldn't presume to tell a guy who he's "with". What's the use of that? But if it makes you comfortable to put me in a box with some loathed others, enjoy, it's your right I suppose. I trust by your silence on much of my post that you may find much of it just about right. You don't admit this Presidents actions are all to reminiscent of Nixon; but obviously when I point it out, you have no response, either. Disturbing, no? Lawrence Walsh has an an opinion nothing more. Frankly, if the president is on the job when he speaks to the American people(and he is) and he then lies to protect his rep. with them, with lies amounting to slander against CITIZEN accusors, it is an abuse of office. It alone is enough. Frankly, Walsh is wrong in my opinion anyway, because I think the founders clearly intended that of all the politicians running around, such a one as would become president should be ABOVE the rest in character- and they tried to ensure this would be the case. They intended to hold a President to a higher standard than mere congressmen, they wanted him to be one of the outstanding few amoung politicians, and they said so. This is our Pee Wee Herman President who is worse than Pee Wee because he slanders otherwise mere sexually consenting(Well, SOME consented) female American Citizens as liars, with the voice of his high office and the trust placed therein behind him, when HE is clearly the liar(which I don't hear you denying). Yes THIS is enough, even without perjury in court. This issue is rampant slandering and lying far more than it is sex, and it thus crosses political lines. It's downright against the American way!(VBG-but true enough- sense of fair play and all-geez, how'd you like to be the she against a presidential HE? He's a putz!) His actions meet the standard for impeachment and he may duly go before the Senate soon. Yes, as 40% of the polled say, he Ought to resign. Just as Bob Packwood did.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (13810)	11/8/1998 10:17:00 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<"It should be limited to activities that occur in office," said Lawrence Walsh>> Shuh, now there you go contradicting yourself again. First you tell me that President Bush lied under oath and should have been impeached. Then when I challenged that lie and challenged you to show where Bush was ever put under oath as president, you make vague reference to testimony he provided before he became president. You indicated that was enough to get him, according to Walsh. Now you're using the quote above by your hero, Walsh, to justify excusing Clinton from impeachment based on his activities outside the presidency. Your twisted sense of logic only indicates that you are both a liar AND an idiot.