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: sea_biscuit who wrote (15657)	11/23/1998 1:13:00 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 67261

The system has not worked as yet and it looks as though it will not work. There is NO way the founding fathers intended that the system should protect a lying, perjuring, obstructing scumbag such as the one we have in the WH. If he had ANY honor, he would have resigned long ago. He has NO honor, No integrity and NO morals nor ANY moral authority to lead this country and we are ALL the poorer for that situation. Some of us recognize that and some continue to defend the status quo. JLA

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (15657)	11/23/1998 1:26:00 PM
From: geneh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Shame on you! In typical liberal fashion, you've chosen to focus on a non-issue. Never mind that being a homosexual is not criminal and nowhere do I advocate it be regarded as such. It is about sex though, and a lifestyle and behavior that the public utterly rejects and loathes. And their freedom to soundly reject a President who has lost their confidence and acceptance. Should a President not be required to "hold office at the public's whim"? Yea, verily yea, and not just because of his lifestyle as in the example above. How about a President who wages wars and short-term police actions with which the public overwhelmingly and violently disagrees? Seems to me this is the sort of policy which would leave you frothing at the mouth. The truth is it's Republicans ONLY who are to be subjects of impeachment proceedings according to people of your ilk. "Not OUR MAN - and not on our watch". That is truly what lies at the rock-bottom of your arguments. Any moral or preferably immoral argument (for contempt effect!) will suffice.