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: one_less who wrote (22401)	12/18/1998 8:28:00 PM
From: RJC2006	Respond to of 67261

<<<I don't count bc as one who is willing to sacrifice anything for a cause.>>> I don't know about that. He seems to cozy up to Communism rather well.

To: one_less who wrote (22401)	12/18/1998 8:49:00 PM
From: Machaon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<< So, all I'm left with is my gut feeling, which tells me I can't trust him. >> How can I argue with that statement, and it's preceding explanation? You hit a nerve this time. I feel that he has done a good job, but I have also lost some trust in Clinton. But, what choice do I have? It's a choice between Clinton and these power hungry, mean spirited Republicans. Mean Spirited is an important irritation. A lot of Replublican mothers should've told their sons that, if they keep frowning and scowling like they do, their faces will freeze with that scowl. Well, it has for a bunch of them, and their actions coordinate with their scowls! << I have very strong suspicions that his actions as president are not on behalf of what he believes to be in the name of "justice for all." >> It irritates me that Clinton sets his adjenda based on the polls. He changes to suit as much of the voting public as possible. But, that is politics. And, it's not all that bad. If you can't act due to principle, instead, give the voting public what they want. << I know you have your doubts, but our history is marked with people who gave their lives and made every possible sacrifice for the cause of "justice for all." >> Doubts? No, of course not. I know this to be true, also. I hated the Vietnam war. I thought that it was a huge politically driven, stupid war, that killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of our best. But, I have the utmost respect for all veterans. Our vets are our best. << Yet, he is currently engaged in a military action that is resulting in the death of countless people who are not capable of defending themselves. >> Saddam Hussein is a brutal murdering, criminal who has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people, and would use them again. He must be stopped, or, instead of a few people being killed, millions would be at risk. We need to take him out this time. I'm hoping that killing Saddam is a goal of Clinton this time. Hey guy. Thanks for your note. We won't change each other's mind, but this is so much more pleasant than trading insults, as most of the other anti-Clinton posters tend to like doing. At least, I am understanding your view a little better, and that's enjoyable for me. Regards, Bob

To: one_less who wrote (22401)	12/18/1998 9:53:00 PM
From: TigerPaw	Respond to of 67261

I decided to pick up a college level textbook pertinant to the last impeachment of a President to gain insite in what to expect. From The Civil War and Reconstruction by J.G.Randall and David Donald. 1969 reprint of 1961 copywrite. D.C.Heath & Company. Page 605-606 Articles of impeachment were now sought and produced; but since the House had voted to impeach the President (with no accusation pending) the discussion of articles was in no sense a deliberation as to whether the President had committed an impeachable "crime," nor was the debate on specific articles a matter of reconsidering the vote to impeach.. So far pretty much the same as today. TP