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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (12926)	6/30/1999 10:07:00 AM
From: Catfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Neocon, You hit the nail on the head. Good post.

To: Neocon who wrote (12926)	6/30/1999 12:03:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

He's too small for the job. JLA

To: Neocon who wrote (12926)	7/2/1999 3:36:00 AM
From: PiMac	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

N-Let me take your assumption of clinical, rather than moral sexual problems, and see where it goes. Additionally, let me reiterate I believe the facts show he has, on his own, attempted and succeeded in moderating his problem behavior. Dropping the rapes down to 'boorishness' is sufficient movement to support this. So, now, what we have is a man who has been forced into underground, secretive treatment for the major problem area of his entire life. He has developed ways of addressing the world that appear unhonest, in order to cover the area that must be kept hidden. All that is then required is enough prejudice and he becomes the man who has something to hide, a dishonest man. In fact, the only allegations that have stuck, to bend people to view him with prejudice, is this very area where he is most vulnerable from lack of societally approved treatment. It is also the only area this problem impacts the Office. The sexual victims result from refusal to allow him treatment. His lies, his friends ruin in his defense, are byproducts of that choice of society. They do not amount to bad actions, themselves, just to a style of taking care of his own business and making strong, protective friends. The actions he has made show no more malice than the effort he made to improve his sexual behavior. His political scheming and policies may be considered poor form, but they are only a distasteful part of that game. So, considered without prejudice, there is nothing out of the ordinary in his actions as President, and there is a legitimate style that he developed for his health, through it appears to come from being underhanded all his life, and there is a character that has beat much of a problem few can deal with. The only realistic lack he does have as President is that he can't stop people from thinking badly of him. And he is liberal. And he must have sex. The only excuse he must still indulge is that the sex-phobes created his style. And style is the only complaint you have listed beside believing allegations. His style won't change much, but you really want some new allegation to be proven true. Why? Because after dozens of false allegations, you still can't imagine being forced to hide something your entire life, only to have some borderline legal maneuver tear it out of you. You think honor enters into it. How about thinking of it in terms of interrogating a verboten juden? Both are innocent, we assume. Both will suffer needlessly from cooperation or refusal. The reason or degree of suffering doesn't change the principle. Am I missing an analogy or are your principles inconsistent?