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: Scumbria who wrote (139438)	4/19/2001 5:52:45 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 769669

Scumbriag, that's crap. Clinton signed the law he tried to evade. Period. End of story. Perjury and Obstruction of Justice is NEVER appropriate no matter what the reason. get over it. We elected a scumbag, twice. JLA

To: Scumbria who wrote (139438)	4/19/2001 6:05:55 PM
From: Don Pueblo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769669

...in 1790 the country was more concerned with sustaining Democracy than it is now. Excellent! I am in total agreement with you on that! I'm glad we found something we can agree on. Man, do you ever take breaks???

To: Scumbria who wrote (139438)	4/19/2001 6:37:31 PM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769669

What was that about lying under oath to a grand jury? I don't recall that Jefferson was afflicted with the deficiency of not being able to tell the truth. Call me crazy for expecting the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the Country to tell the truth in a legitimately brought civil suit while under oath. I guess he thought it was OK to deny some Americans their day in court. ~SB~

To: Scumbria who wrote (139438)	4/20/2001 10:01:36 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769669

Jefferson didn't have obsessed power hungry political enemies putting him on the stand questioning the intimate details of his sex life. And neither did Clinton. Clinton merely had found himself in a situation wherein he was accused of sexual impropriety and, as part of the very legal effort to get to the bottom of the accusation, was asked a legal question—to which he responded with a lie under oath. In Jefferson’s day, a man could virtually do as he wanted with a woman and that woman would not have had the guts to press a legal charge. Indeed, the law simply did not recognize her rights in this regard. That is why Jefferson and scarcely any other politician of his day was never faced with such a legal circumstance. (And as for their wanting to preserve Democracy more than we-- you must consider that women and blacks could not vote. THAT is the "democracy" very many leaders of the time wanted to preserve.) Your comparison is absurd, because in 1790 the country was more concerned with sustaining Democracy than it is now. A purely subjective determination and an obvious non sequitur even were we to accept it—which we do not. Moreover, I did not make a comparison. You did. I in fact argued that such comparisons ought not be made. Jefferson’s circumstances are markedly different from those of Bill Clinton. I think Jefferson was a victim of a character that, had it existed in modern times would never have allowed itself to be soiled as Bill Clinton allowed his to be soiled.