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 (41696)	4/6/1999 12:42:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

>Johannes--- I am afraid you are stretching things a bit. You know as well as I that of the 42%, most don't follow the news closely, and had no firm grasp on Clinton's character, and, in any event, it is a poor fall-back from asserting that the American people endorsed his election.< If memory serves properly, those 42% returned the second election to keep Clinton in the White House, this despite four years of his lies. >I disagree that withholding a certain punishment is the same as "openly endorsing".< According to the polls (and I believe them because of their consistency), 70% of Americans consistently claimed Clinton was “doing a good job” and therefore should remain president. These people made a false dichotomy between the man who is president and the man who flagrantly and repeatedly broke their laws and lied to their faces. They openly embraced Bill Clinton as their leader, while trying to reject him personally, and this is an impossibility. It was an unprincipled reaction to corruption, perhaps due to fear and greed. >Now let's see--- the Democrats are doing their best to muddy the water about the severity of the crimes, and you expect a bunch of people who would find losing their jobs devastating to step up to the plate, despite their fear that a recession would be triggered, which the Democrats have played on, and demand that Clinton be ousted?< I once expected precisely this. Now, having acquired a bit more common sense, I do not. >We are going beyond common- sense, or even charity here.< It is really a Catch-22 situation. I lacked common sense but had much charity in holding my original opinion of Americans. Now that I have more common sense, I find I cannot be as charitable. >It is in the nature of a stable democracy that people rarely "take it to the streets"... what are you asking for?< I ask for nothing. I merely comment on the stupidity of holding onto your wallet via a filthy perverted lying probable rapist traitor, and having not the sense to take to the streets at least when he sends your children to be killed because of a war justified by his so called “morality.” Personally I would rather pick up garbage on the street for pennies than even support Bill Clinton before my children as president of the United States. Only God knows what I would do should Clinton try to send my children into war. >The Senate should have removed the man, but it is a political judgement, too, and it is widely understood that it is not the same as vindication...< Well I do not know what else it is. The Senate did indeed justify Bill Clinton. It claimed what he did was acceptable to the Office of the United States Presidency. If it were not acceptable to the office, the office would have rejected him. It did not. In fact it is by the “morality” and “leadership” of Bill Clinton that Congress now sends Americans to Kosovo. The Senate has effectively claimed that should any other president do what Bill Clinton did, that president couldn't be thrown from office. It has harmed the presidency. (gotta run, pal)