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: coug who wrote (19548)	12/14/1998 9:26:00 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

BTW, I'm the only the one whos going to be a winner either way, I've always liked Al Gore anyway, a decent man, with views like my own on the environment and education.. And If the President, doesn't get impeached, thats great too. Same here. I think Al Gore will make a great President. And if President Clinton doesn't get impeached now, not only will Gore's chances get better, even his life as President will be easier once he gets elected in the year 2000. The House is definitely going to the Democrats, if the Senate Republicans prove even half as partisan as the ones in the House. Actually, I want VERY MUCH for Clintion to survive because of one very IMPORTANT POINT, PLURALITY, and that is so IMPORTANT to our Society. Precisely. As I already mentioned, going forward, ethnic relations and environmental issues are the two key issues for humankind. Bill Clinton has done so much for race relations during his two terms. Al Gore is sure to follow in his footsteps. And Gore has put environmental issues way up there on the list too. The future is looking good for the Clinton/Gore team and their supporters. Now, if only the Republicans go ahead and shoot themselves in the other foot also (as they most likely will!), things would be just wonderful!

To: coug who wrote (19548)	12/14/1998 11:02:00 PM
From: Borzou Daragahi	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

Coug, I've despised Bill Clinton and recognized him as the opportunistic snake he was since he showed up in New Hampshire back in 1992. That's what makes opposing the right's jihad against him such a tough task. If Clinton had some integrity and values I could identify with, I'd maybe even march in the streets on his behalf. Unfortunately, for decent, tolerant and enlightened people, we're once again forced to decide between the lesser of two evils, i.e. standing up for the electorate and defending the office of a mediocre and tarnished president vs. letting the bloodthirsty right score a victory and set an alarming precedent. What they're in essence doing is bringing the same tactics of political destabilization and subversion of popular will they implemented in Third World countries during the Cold War to the domestic arena. They hate some of Bill's policies and a lot of what he represents, i.e. the opening of American society during the 1960s and 1970s. But you can't him on his policies, because they're not so unpopular. And Americans kinda dig his "vision" of a tolerant society. So what do you do? You call him immoral You allege he's a criminal. You brand him as a heathen. You argue that he does not represent the people and he's mentally unfit to rule. It's too bad the right is correct in branding him immoral and, thanks to his stupidity and arrogance, in labeling him a criminal. If he had an ounce of integrity, it would have been valiant defending him. I find myself unable to defend him. But I also find myself compelled to attack his attackers, because I dislike them more than I dislike him. Kind regards, Borzou