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: TigerPaw who wrote (18174)	7/24/2002 12:22:42 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 21057

What action did Clinton take during his Presidency to harm the office? None. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Sad part is I think you are so lacking in character that you actually believe that.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (18174)	7/24/2002 12:41:14 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

What action did Clinton take during his Presidency to harm the office? None. If you don't think that the person charged with executing the laws in a nation built on the rule of law harms the highest office in the country by lying under oath in a judicial proceeding in an obviously calculating way, then I guess we don't have any common ground and we are left only to agree to disagree. Look to Pornographer in Chief Ken Starr if you want to see where the dirt came from. As for where Mr. Starr's information came from, it came from witnesses to what Mr. Clinton did. If I cheat on my wife and an investigator finds out and tells her or tells the world, the responsibility for cheating on my wife is still mine. If I take an oath to tell the truth and lie, the responsibility for the lie is mine, not the person who catches the lie. I fail to understand how blaming the investigator for catching the subject in wrongdoing somehow shifts the blame for that wrongdoing. In my view at least some of the following harmed the office of the Presidency: 1. Clinton lied to the American people, his family and his Cabinet and wagged his finger while doing it. 2. Clinton cost the US Treasury millions which would not need to have been spent if he simply admitted the truth. 3. Clinton lied to and misled a federal court for which he was fined $90,000.00 4. Clinton was disbarred for five years by the Arkansas PCC. 5. Clinton is barred from appearing before the U.S. Supreme Court. 6. The mid-January 2001 pardon frenzy, culminating in the pardon of Rich and too many others. Incidentally, I felt that George Bush's Christmas Eve pardons of the Iran Contra figures (I think it was Weinberger et al.) also damaged the office. One of the big responsibilities a President has it to appoint federal judges. When the man vested with that power feels entitled to lie in proceedings before those same judges, regardless of what he lies about, I think it damages the Presidency and also damages the Constitutional system of separation of powers. When he doles out pardons in an indiscriminate fashion and giving rise to the appearance that those pardons may be for sale or available to repay political favors, I think it damages respect for the Presidency and the judicial system. Have others done it? Sure. On both sides of the political spectrum? Absolutely. Does that make it right? No. I view Clinton and Nixon as being cut from the same cloth, and as an American I am not proud of the way either one of them served my country.