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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Machaon who wrote (10945)	2/1/1999 6:44:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

<<I firmly believe that most of the Republican Party is attacking Clinton out of personal power motivation and religious zealousness.>> Maybe, there is some truth in this. There is obviously more propaganda than truth though. Since "most" republicans are not religious zealots. Put that aside for a moment though. Even it it were 100% true that most republicans are doing that. It is also true that one non republican hates clinton simply because he is a manipulating, liar who is using the authority of the office entrusted to him by the support of the American people to obstruct justice; and who is using the power of the US military to act out on Nations of the world to distract us from his "personal" embarrassment; and who can't be trusted at any level to make a statement that lends honor to the highest office in this land. We were once a Nation of individuals Robert. You are using the excuse of "those zealot republicans" to destroy that idea forever. Your thinking is a parot of lies spun by the white house. A reaction to republicans or Hail to the lying chief, either way, I don't know you. Start thinking for your self man.

To: Machaon who wrote (10945)	2/1/1999 7:18:00 PM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

To be honest, I am not sure about this, but I would have to believe that the Democrats would not have abused power if they were in the majority role hahahaha... oh no the dems would never do that would they..... They were all lined up to do that very thing had "the dress" not showed up..Jones and Lewinski were going to be trashed with all his resources IMO... the DEMS all voting against the articles of impeachment, in fine partisan fashion, then strutting right over to the white house lawn to be seen with Bill and Al and being a part of Bills ""impromptu"" speech about how we need to quit this policy of destructive politics, IS abuse of power. How soon Republicans forget. <g> A little while ago a band of righteous Republicans gave their "speaker" a standing ovation after finding out that he had cheated on his wife over and over again. Standing O was for admitting it and stepping down... I am glad he did, BUT it ain't about him it's about our CiC. Rule # 1. when you can't defend your client with the truth, trash the other side... It ain't about Hyde It ain't about Livingston It ain't about Barr Its about POTUS..........and Starr is not through yet. dan

To: Machaon who wrote (10945)	2/1/1999 8:02:00 PM
From: Ross Roberts	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

I said ... << If Clinton were a Republican the Democrats would have been screaming from the rooftops for his removal. >> your reply ... To be honest, I am not sure about this, but I would have to believe that the Democrats would not have abused power if they were in the majority role. my response ... You're not being honest about this. For you to deny that you and your fellow Democrat/liberal friends would would crucify a Republican president that did the same things Clinton did only shows your contempt for the truth. ______________________________________________________________________ I said ... << If Clinton were a Republican the Republican leadership would have gone to him and forced him to resign. >> your reply ... How soon Republicans forget. <g> A little while ago a band of righteous Republicans gave their "speaker" a standing ovation after finding out that he had cheated on his wife over and over again. I don't care how bad this little display of bad judgement looks, I care about the message it sends. my response ... I really don't see what this has to do with WJC committing felonies. The Speaker-Elect had the good sense and decency to resign after his infidelities came to light. He also didn't commit perjury nor did he orchestrate and direct a coverup of his activities in order to obstruct justice and deny an American citizen (Paula Jones) a fair hearing in the courts. You say you care about the message the Republicans sent. What about the messages you and your boy WJC are sending?? You seem to think it's okay for the president to engage in a reckless, adulterous affair in the oval office, to lie to his "friends", his cabinet officials and to the American people about it -- and, of course to commit perjury and obstruction of justice in order to avoid taking responsibility for his actions. That's just pathetic, Robert. ______________________________________________________________________ I said ... << If Clinton gets away with the crimes he's committed the precedent will be set that, as long as you're popular, and have a rabidly partisan party supporting you, that you can ignore the law at your will. >> your response ... Let's say that Clinton's crime was jaywalking? And, when questioned, he answered that he thought that he had crossed between the lines. Our country would still be going thru the damaging impeachment trial. I firmly believe that most of the Republican Party is attacking Clinton out of personal power motivation and religious zealousness. my reply ... You didn't address my point at all, but I'll reply to your nonsensical response anyway. His crimes were perjury and obstructing justice, not jaywalking. Perjury and obstructing justice are felonies. Your assertion that his crimes are minor is disingenuous, at best. Your assertion that he'd be impeached for jaywalking is ludicrous and only shows that you practice the same tactics of "the big lie" that WJC and the rest of his supporters do. I voted for WJC in 92. I didn't vote for him in 96 because I had concluded that he is a liar, has no core political beliefs, and because I believed the Bob Dole would be a better president. I support the impeachment of WJC because he's proven, beyond a doubt, that he's a reckless and dangerous man that's willing to subvert the constitution, to break the laws that he has sworn to uphold and to destroy innocent people for his own selfish ends. For you to continue to defend him only proves the old saying that "There are none so blind as those that will not see." Robert, you are either blind or stupid (or both). But you are good at obfuscation and lying. Are you sure you're not one of WJC's paid "spin-meisters"???