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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (9862)	3/27/2001 12:44:51 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 82486

I think we are doing an apples and oranges things with proof. My concept of proof is clearly not the same as Ebill's concept of proof- at least as near as I can tell. Perhaps he means proven by public opinion in the circles he hangs out in- in which case it is proven. I am sure if he hangs out with people like himself they have all the proof they need- using proof in the sense of -The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. Because they certainly do accept it as true. They just don't have legal proof. BTW- there was a great Australian movie called proof, about a blind man who took photographs. I highly recommend that movie. It has, however, nothing to do with Bill Clinton or Ted Bundy. I should probably make that clear.

To: cosmicforce who wrote (9862)	3/27/2001 12:51:26 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Comparing Clinton to anyone would be stupid to some. And this issue of proof is always a good diversion. Some of Clinton's transgressions have been proved in a court of law, like "misleading" the court, some have been settled out of court and others have legally expired due to statute of limitations. Still others, like the Flowers tapes, are proof but not in a court. Do you need legal (in a court) proof to declare Milosevic a murderer? (Clinton didn't.) Comparing two rapists (one who was caught and convicted, the other who gets paid for giving speeches) is legitimate in many people's minds.

To: cosmicforce who wrote (9862)	3/27/2001 3:39:37 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

I've been a critic of Clinton. But aren't we in a country where such proof is done in a court of law. You are certainly welcome to say you think he's guilty, but "proven"? Proven by whom? Since some falsely accused people are convicted even a conviction in a court of law is not really proof. I would look at the evidence that is available and make my own conclution, but recognize that the jury probably had more info. Tim