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.

Pastimes : Ask Mohan about the Market -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (17259)	12/9/1998 12:57:00 PM
From: Richard Nehrboss	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18056

Mike, I have to call you on this one. RE: Reagan lie, stole, and cheated. Grab Walsh's report and show me where Reagan did any of the above. I'm surprised to see you say that one expects liberals to be more ethical than conservative. I think you must mean more ethical in their own sliding relative moralism. Whatever works at the moment is the credo of liberals.. Drugs, legalize... eight month (as measured from conception as in Korea) old baby, kill it... etc. But you are right, we can't agree with the conduct no matter what our affiliation. Packwood was toasted for making an advance toward an intern. Republicans nailed their own guy. I'm bothered that few if any democrats have the integrity to hold their own to standards they hold republicans to. Richard

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (17259)	12/9/1998 1:19:00 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18056

...though one does expect liberals to be more ethical than conservatives... Either you didn't write what you intended, or this is one of the stupidest comments I've ever heard. Here's your chance to retract the statement and regain your credibility. <VBG> I object strongly to your assertion that Reagan "...certainly lied and stole and cheated, and otherwise harmed the people of the USA..." Given that I disagree, assume for a moment that you are right, even though thinking people know you are not. Pretend, just pretend, that Reagan was not one of the most moral and ethical people ever to hold the Presidency. So what? What, exactly, does that have to do with Clinton? Do you think it is a valid defense for wrongdoing that someone else also committed the same crime? C'mon, Mike. We expect better from you. jim

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (17259)	12/9/1998 8:57:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18056

Mike, I think the reasoning for "non Impeachment" should be based on protecting the strength of the Presidential Office, not a question of breaking the law per se. If we indeed impeach based on the misdeed assumed, we will end up in a situation were the will of the people (who voted the man in knowing that his moral standards are less then perfect, and fully knowing the man is itching behind his zipper) can be too easily subverted by the opposing party (then having a majority in Congress). A politician aspiring to the Presidency simply cannot be "holy" enough not to have "skeletons" in his closet. Why, even the purist Carter "Sinned in his heart". The impeachment process should be, IMHO, reserved for the rare case when the Executive is indeed found using the power of his office to tyranically muzzle the opposition (which I believe was really the "causus Belli" in the Nixon case), and of course for those instances (treason and high crime) specifically cited by the founding fathers. Zeev