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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ibexx who wrote (73616)	2/13/1999 11:57:00 PM
From: Gerald Walls	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

A midnight snack for the INTC threaders: A different opinion from IBD, but first a couple of quotes: "My feelings of disappointment and anger have not dissipated, except now the feelings have gone beyond my personal dismay to a larger, graver sense of loss for our country, a reckoning of the damage that the president's conduct has done to the proud legacy of his presidency, and, ultimately, an accounting of the impact of his actions on our democracy and its moral foundations." -- Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn. "The question is, does this rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors? I say yes, no doubt about it." -- Sen Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. -------------------------- The Eve of Corruption? The outcome of the vote to convict William Jefferson Clinton was expected, but that doesn't make it any less disappointing. The people, we are told, have spoken. But if lawmakers running for re-election lose their seats in 2000, so be it. Maybe then honor and duty and respect for the rule of law will be reaffirmed. It would not be surprising if the Democrats up for re-election have a tough time 2000. It's unlikely that primary challengers will raise the issue. But Republicans will no doubt force them to explain their vote to acquit an adulterer, liar and obstructer of justice. And the five Republicans who voted to acquit on both charges will no doubt face primary challengers. Indeed, the Republicans will have a tougher time, because everyone believes this was a "partisan impeachment trial," so why weren't the Republicans partisan? The true partisans were Democrats, all 45 of whom fell in lockstep with the White House. Truth be told, neither party has distinguished itself in the Senate. Democrats staked their careers on a scoundrel that Republicans have shown they can't stand up to. Indeed, the senators in the impeachment drama seemed like understudies to real statesmen. Especially the women. When it came to adhering to principle, the rule of law, or women's rights, they didn't seem interested. How Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, Barbara Mikulski, Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu could excuse the cad in the White House stretches the bounds of credulity. These women, who have fought long and hard for tougher sexual harassment laws, have given a free pass to a man who uses and misuses women for his personal pleasure. And shame on Maine Republicans Olumpia Snowe and Susan Collins. Throughout our history we have celebrated the integrity of Yankee women. But now they, too, have been seduced by the polls. It's hard to imagine the same "not guilty" votes being cast by Abigail Adams. Is this what American politics have come to? It would be nice to imagine lawmakers who stand for principle. It would be nice to elect men and women who are willing, as Rep. Henry Hyde put it, to lose their jobs over what's rights. And despite what the Beltway elite may suppose will happen in the next election, principle and character and honesty do matter. The 13 Republican House managers, whom Clinton apparently will target in 2000, have nothing to be ashamed of. Except maybe their Senate brethren. They stood up to public opposition, media condemnation and White House excoriation. Their political cover is genuine: They believed in something beyond their poll ratings. Those who voted to convict Clinton have the same cover, even if they weren't more forceful in demanding a full trial in the Senate. The politicians with the most to fear are those who were forced into verbal and logical contortions, all to protect a president who now bears a striking resemblance to a king. Nor will future king Al Gore have as easy a time as the Beltway elite thinks. He'll be hard-pressed to respond to ads showing him at the pep rally following Clinton's impeachment and declaring Clinton "a great president." The republic may survive the acquittal of William Jefferson Clinton. But his corruption is, as Rep. James Sensenbrenner said, a cancer that could grow in the body politic.

To: Ibexx who wrote (73616)	2/14/1999 12:11:00 AM
From: Ibexx	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Gerry, I hope you did notice a tongue in the cheek. (Although I was informed that some cheeks had no tongues). <g> Ibexx

To: Ibexx who wrote (73616)	2/14/1999 8:24:00 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Ibexx, >>>A midnight snack for the INTC threaders:<<< A midnight snack for some, but a nightmare for others. The founding fathers provided a lot of checks and balances so that no one can abuse the privileges of power. Our (mostly) two party system also serve to provide checks and balances. Being an adversary system, things inevitable go too far. That is a small price we have to pay. For the most part, however, there are more things that bind us together than that which separates us. In general, the lunatic fringe on either side, the left and the right, are the real enemies. The real enemy in this particular case is not the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, or the institutions of government. The real enemy is the behavior of one individual. He didn't do it for some noble cause. He didn't do it because he was a Democrat. He did it because he is a selfish and immature jerk. He did dmamage to himself, his family, his politcal party, the Presidency, and to his country. He did it because he wanted to have perverted sex at any time, at anywhere, and with whomever he pleased and then was not man enough to admit it even after being cornered. He chose instead to lie and obstruct justice (although not enough to warrant Impeachment). Yes, it is perverted sex. It was not even a normal adulterous affair where he would have sexual intercourse, when circumstances with his wife had changed and he fell in love, with another adult women. Instead he chose to use a subordinate as an instrument for some one way sex act that is questionable by definition - depending on how you define sex. He tried to hide behind and use, by all accounts a very honorable civil servent, Betty Currie to obstruct justice. If it was not for DNA evidence, he would have denied it and trashed the young woman in question. With the exception of an oddball here and there, no one can defend Clinton's behavior. It is hard to imagine that Clinton's selfishness and immaturity can be confined to some weird sexual activity. Demonizing each other in the general populace, however, is the real sin coming out of this ugly affair. It is evident that Bill Clinton is not a person with real convictions about anything noble. I think Dick Morris can tell you all about how the two of them really think. Clinton will abandon any feelings of principle if it will prevent damage to him in the polls just as he would abandon any female that he shared some kind of sex act with (Flowers, Jones, Lewinsky, Wiley, Broderick, Browning, Gracen, MacDougal, beauty pageant winners, the numbered Jane Does, and all the complicit females) if they came forward. Whether this type of behavior prucludes someone from occupying the office of the President of the United States is legitimately debateable. There are good and honorable people on both sides of this issue. To paraphrase someone who defended a Nixon appointtee to the Supreme Court, there are plenty of jerks in our society and they also have to be represented. Why can't a President also be a jerk? That could be debated, but don't let us demonize each other in the process. Regards, Mary