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: Neocon who wrote (41624)	4/5/1999 11:51:00 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

>a.) Most people voted against Clinton, voting either for the Republican candidate ro Perot;< But 42% voted for Clinton. A very substantial number of unprincipled individuals. >b.) 70% percent didn't "openly embrace him", his personal favorables took a nose- dive, but many were afraid of the consequences of getting rid of him.< When 70% openly approve of him as their leader, despite knowing of his lying and cheating, they openly embrace him. They are no different than the Democrats who claimed Clinton was "shameful", etc., but who then fought like the dickens to stand by their man. >If you are economically secure, it is easy to deride that as ignoble, but if you have ever been laid off and worried about taking care of your family, it is a different kettle of fish;< Dear me. This is truly whorish, Neocon. I can hardly see what a person's financial position has to do with it. Are people really so dependent upon Clinton that they are willing to accept his having blowjobs from a woman who could have been any of their daughters? Are they really so tied into Clinton they are willing to accept his likely rape of a woman who could have been any of their wives, allowing him to continue in office never even addressing the charges? Are they really so dependent upon him they are willing to allow him to repeatedly and flagrantly cheat their system and lie to their faces? Are they so afraid for their wallets they are willing to allow this man to bomb sovereign nations on “moral” pretenses? Mercy, I find this disgusting beyond belief. >c.) The public is ambivalent about the Kosovo mess, and likely to turn against the president before it is done. In any case, they are opposed to sending their "sons and daughters into war", which is why they are opposed to the introduction of ground troops;< And should Clinton send in American troops will they then take to the streets? I think not. >d.) The Senate did not say that what Clinton did was all right. It said that it was not prepared to remove him, all things considered. I think this was wrong, but it is not the same as vindication, which is one of the reasons the Rather interview was so obnoxious.< The Senate claimed Clinton's behaviour was not sufficient to have him removed from office. They effectively claimed our nation capable of following a president, ANY president, who has done the things Clinton has done. They have accepted Clintonian morality acceptable to the American presidency. If the presidency is not good enough to reject a man like Bill Clinton, it is truly a poor presidency. >I am sure there is more to say, but I have a limited mount of time this morning, and so will move on...< Understood. I am on the run myself.