THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING Message Board

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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (19606)	8/22/2002 10:00:10 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) of 21057

Just maybe that oath means that he should have had a bit more respect for the importance of telling the truth in our legal system when under oath. Did I not say to TP that Clinton should not have lied? What's not clear about that? I did not lie under oath. I didn't have any need to lie. I was a government official faithfully executing my country's laws. I should not have been asked under oath what I was asked. Had I had any reason to lie, I would have entertained the idea in the face of the absurdity of the questions. So I can understand how one might react that way. In the final analysis, I think I would have been wrong to lie, but that it is not so clear cut as folks without my experience seem to want to make it.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next