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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (18172)	7/24/2002 11:24:27 AM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

The sad part is that Clinton just couldn't seem to understand what the office of the Presidency means to people. What action did Clinton take during his Presidency to harm the office? None. Once the right wing judges with an agenda funded by Scaife began relentless digging the office of the Presidency was in for a mud-bath. It doesn't matter if he kissed Lewinsky or not, they would have continued with Mud over the Travel office, or accusing him of murder, or any other clod of fecal material they could smear on the White House. It's only a shallow understanding that can lead you to conclude that Clinton was not trying to protect his image and the image of the office. Look to Pornographer in Chief Ken Starr if you want to see where the dirt came from. TP

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (18172)	7/24/2002 12:24:12 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

LOL! I see you got the standard "Kenny Starr made him do it" response from TreasonPuddy.... There could not possibly be a bigger moron on SI than ole TP....

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (18172)	7/24/2002 1:04:01 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

guess the fact that several people here (and numerous people elsewhere) have readily "defended" Clinton with what I call the "everybody else does it" or "other people are bad too" defenses indicates the level of moral rot involved. It's not a defence, It's a perspective check. What he did was wrong, yes. It did damage, yes. But it wasn't some sort of national catastrophe, it did not permanently damage (or even discernably alter) the moral fabric of the nation, and the only thing really unusual about the incident was the amount of attention paid to it. I don't see it in the same class as Iran/Contra, or Watergate, or the Tonkin Gulf. Lies were involved in all 4 cases, but to me there's a difference between lying about a blow job and lying about an attempt to start a war, or subvert an election, or evade oversight with a highly controversial covert operations. The nature of the offence is the same; the degree is somewhat different.