SI
SI
discoversearch

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

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (18808)12/12/1998 8:32:00 PM
From: Dan B.  Read Replies (1) of 67261
 
No, it was not Starr who ruled. It was a "recently unsealed decision by..." anybody? I believe it was a federal Appellate court.

Jones appealed. Otherwise it was a dead issue, and she'd get nothing, no? He expected to lose, correct. Expected to lose against HER appeal in the end- just as you've relayed it from the article you read. At any rate, just as you say- Clinton knew the case would go forward- and that's in part because the arguments you've posted were not expected to hold any water in the courts. What happened simply did happen, and your characterization of reality as my "supposition" is silly IMHO. Yes, there is no admission of guilt, quite correct!- which fact is a legalism signifying little or nothing to unbiased observers in case after settled case throughout history. You take a very WEAK stand there! But you choose to hold tight to your legal thread of a favorable to Clinton view- and that's your right- but your right to do it doesn't add any water to the position you stubbornly hold.

As for my last sentence, it's MY right to have the opinion that Clintons actions are an affront to American Women. You are so politicized that you scarcely realize that if only Clinton were a Republican- Democrats, Feminists and You, would all surely be harping endlessly and rightfully so, making MY current argument over and over, and you'd win- you'd get rid of that President.
What's sad is that Republicans fail to arouse the public disgust over these issues as Democrats would if the situation were reversed.

Your offhand "guess" about my views is quite wrong- o ye of the stereotype foundry of unfounded innuendo and assumption. Not only do you dismiss the large numbers of women who DO feel as I do about Clinton, but in fact, I support Choice for abortions! I sir, am proud NOT to be a Republican- even if many of them are pro-choice too. You should be ashamed of having defended for even a second the lies and defamation Clinton knowingly allowed to touch the lives of Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Jennifer Flowers and...who's next?....Let's not forget Hillary. This won't be forgotten by history, and like Nixons defenders in Watergate- you'll be shamed for your refusal to realize truth until it was too late. Men who treat women badly come from ALL parties...We've got one in the White House now.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext