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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (18746)	12/12/1998 1:39:00 PM
From: j g cordes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

The Editorial Page of the New York Times states "Contrition without Confession" My Response to them is this: "Contrition without Confession" states the obvious. The thirst for confession is rooted not in American justice but in religious intolerance and political vengance that seeks to break someone's will and spirit before letting them go. Our country was founded as a sanctuary against such medieval thinking and practice, one can only imagine the horror of public confession applied evenly across the land. Will we require our children to publicly confess to their classmates in school? Will we have confession days where citizens must display their proper shame and dishonor? Soon we will be throwing stones at sinners and rebuilding the tortures of the public dunking and pillory. An image of Communist confessions of shame to having private thoughts looms on the horizon. There is an evil in demanding or forcing confession that goes against the American spirit. Can we really strike a bargain with lying by demanding the liar himself confess? That thinking allows that forcing a confession is equal to the act of perjury. That one act dissolves the other, like matter and anti-matter cleansing the universe of shame. This is medieval and below the American ambition of tolerance, of allowing the best we offer to survive our failures. Too much has been made of this hunt for retribution, Clinton has been dragged over the coals a hundred times and the majority knows every sordid detail. We also know this isn't what we want our Congress and Senate to pursue in the year ahead. Its done, end the game of shame.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (18746)	12/12/1998 1:54:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

"Equanamity and grace." You've got to be kidding. Did you see the look on Bubba's face on the videotape when they asked him about the cigar? Do you remember Hillary's comments about the VRWC? hahahahahahahahahahahahaha JLA

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (18746)	12/12/1998 2:06:00 PM
From: John Lacelle	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Michelle, How can you compare Jimmy Carter with Bill Clinton. Sorry, excuse me but I must go throw up... -John

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (18746)	12/12/1998 2:06:00 PM
From: Machaon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<< ... 10 years from now both Clintons will be revered in a way that no other president has been ... I predict the republican leadership will not survive in 2000. >> Hmmmmm!? Taking it one step further......... If there is a public outrage against the Republicans in 2000, it is quite possible that Clinton will be able to run for office again in 2008 or later, right? Doesn't the constitution just prohibit more than 2 "consecutive" terms? During his next term in office, he might be serving as a "single" man, so his trysts with interns wouldn't be that big a deal! <g>

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (18746)	12/12/1998 4:16:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

>>Absolutely right and the same holds for Hillary. 10 years from now both Clintons will be revered in a way that no other president has been - a kind of Jimmy Carter effect, much different of course but you know what I mean. Hillary may well be a significant political figure too, after all they are both still young by presidential standards. I see that you have been enjoying your boxes of wine. They must call your place the "Home of the Whopper" because you certainly like delivering them up. When you sober up you'll see that that ridiculous hallucination will never reach eventually so long as people can think. >>Its amazing to me that the republicans can be so STUPID as to throw away their leadership Gee, this IS leadership. What you want is followership - to follow the 60% that are currently clueless about what impeachment is and why Clinton must be impeached for posterity. The US is not Arkansas writ large. The US is not yet the banana republic the corrupt, partisan Dems seek to make it. (pun intended) In the future people will see Clinton, at best, as the callow, shallow man who won the Presidency with lies. To the credit of the US public, the majority voted against him both times. Clinton will be seen as the first sociopath to win the Presidency, driven by his craven, power-mad wife.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (18746)	12/12/1998 4:53:00 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

67% don't want impeachment. 33% do- which is a significant and unusual number on it's own. 50% don't care if he IS impeached- not a wit! These are the numbers. What do they mean? It means the middle of the road cross voters are saying he shouldn't be impeached. Only the hard core on each side give a wit one way or the other, however. This is plain by the polls as we can see. I'd have to say that those who don't care one way or the other have no high opinion of Clinton, and really, wil easily forget- they just don't really give a damn and aren't paying particular attention anyway. As for Hillary, the three extremely conflicting publicly stated versions of her explaining how she came to make 100grand on cattle futures will haunt her forever! No one can seriously doubt that that was a pay-off for something- and this is but the tip of the dirty and well established ice-berg with her. Never to be known evidence- known to have been shredded. Oh my....you miscalculate badly about her future.