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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (129242)	2/26/2001 5:03:00 PM
From: George Coyne	Respond to of 769670

If honest to god bribery can be proven, e.g. selling a pardon, I'll change my mind, Do you actually only believe something if it is "proven" in a court of law? O. J. innocent?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (129242)	2/26/2001 7:14:43 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

"human beings don't usually select their political leaders because of their morals ....they select them for ideology, leadership skills , charisma, and hopefully for honesty and integrity" Do you believe that Bill Clinton had the "honesty and integrity" to be the President? I agree with you that those are important, but can't see how you can "think he was the best president we had in my lifetime" unless you were born in 1992 and don't count presidents that have been in office less than 100 days. He has almost nothing in the honesty or integrity department if you ask me.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (129242)	2/26/2001 8:36:31 PM
From: Little Joe	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

JF: "The only person who should have cared about Clinton's indiscretions was Hillary." I think you are wrong and here are some of my reasons: When the president has sex with an intern in the white house, we should be concerned. If I were a stockholder in a corporation which employed young college men and women for the summer and I found out the president of the company was having sexual liasons with those college interns, I would be extremely concerned. Not because I am a pervert, but because of the adverse effect it could have on the business. Who is to say that one of those interns might not sue the company, or blackmail the president of the company into doing something that hurt the company. I think this analogy carries through to the presddent of the United States. Second: It is extremely important to me that Clinton lied under oath. Perhaps you dismiss this as a small thing. I cannot. You may say look what he lied about anyone would have. My answer to that is as follows: The suits that were filed against Clinton were filed under various civil rights laws which, to his credit, he supported and strengthened while he was president. Among the claims that these laws allow are claims for sexual harrassment. These claims involve mostly serious and aggregious actions taken by employers, against women employees predominently. The courts have recognized and Clinton has supported the idea that in order to give claimants the opportunity to develop proof of the harrassment that the claimant is able to make inquiry of the defendant's past sexual activities (without a lot of limitations). This is what was going on in the Paula Jones case. To accept Clinton's perjury in this case, is to deny those claimants their rights under the law, to say nothing of Clinton's hypocrisy. I know of many litigants when faced with having to answer embarrassing questions settled their cases, or where appropriate (in States where adultry is a crime) pleaded the fifth amendment. I know of a few of these cases where I do not believe that the party was guilty, but rather than embarrass themselves and their families, decided to settle the case. If ordinary folks who do not have much say in the passage of these laws can obey the law, can we expect less of the president? The fact is that Clinton could have settled all of these cases and never had to lie. Now you might say why should he settle a frivolous lawsuit, that's not fair. I say ask those who have been victimized by the filing of such frivolous lawsuits if what happened to them was fair. The fact is that our society has made a decision that in order to eliminate or reduce sexual harrassment these laws are necessary and while some innocent people may be harmed along the way the net result is a plus. Bill Clinton was more complicit than most in making that decision and he more than anyone should pay the price, when for lying in such a case. Little joe

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (129242)	2/26/2001 10:44:22 PM
From: SecularBull	Respond to of 769670

The sex in the White House was important, because of a civil suit brought by Paula Jones against Clinton. He denied the sex under oath in a deposition (a lie which damaged the case against Clinton by Jones). When the chief law enforcement officer of the US lies under oath over something as "insignificant" as sex, you might wonder what more important issues he may also lie about. Nevertheless, I'm sure that Ms. Jones did not see it to be an insignificant matter. LoF

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (129242)	2/27/2001 1:45:08 AM
From: Master (Hijacked)	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

". First of all, human beings don't usually select their political leaders because of their morals ....they select them for ideology, leadership skills , charisma, and hopefully for honesty and integrity" I suppose with your logic a rapist or child molester in the White House is perfectly acceptable as long as they have the right ideology, leadership skills and charisma. But never mind the sex issue, do you truly believe the Clintons have been honest with Americans about their dealings? Where's the furniture? Whitewater? Sister Hillary knows nothing about brother's sudden enrichment by half a million dollars. The point being that TRUST is more important that Ideology. How can you follow the ideology of someone you do not trust? Vince