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: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (211738)	12/20/2001 2:50:41 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I specifically pointed out that if a conservative did what Clinton did, he would be villified. The villification of Hutchison and Gingrich was rather subdued. I think only Larry Flynt took issue with it. TP

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (211738)	12/20/2001 3:09:11 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"But, Clinton was given a pass for some inexplicable reason" That is why I can sympathize with Tripp, and even support what she did. If she didn't, then people would not know who Bill Clinton is. He would have continued to lie and to tarnish the reps of those who did not. She did America a favor by exposing what was being portrayed dishonestly as republican villification of Mr. Bill. To witness an hypocrisy of this magnitude and go, gee, this might hurt Monica's feelings seems kind of silly to me. I think she honestly believed that it would be best for Monica to have the truth be known, but knew Monica was too wigged out to realize that. "I would be interested in seeing what you thought I said that "looked like" I was defending Clinton" This is the passage that gave me that impression, "The fact that you can't separate the two issues shows that you are stuck in partisan propaganda" but I can see that I misunderstood your point. Since you thought the issues were separate, and you thought Monica's behavior was indefensible, I assumed that you thought Bill's behavior was defensible. I made my post to better understand where you were coming from, and think I do now. Thanks for the responses.