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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (149753)	8/15/2002 10:15:14 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580442

Clinton was lying to hide that he was committing adultery. The liberal position that lying about CERTAIN things under oath is acceptable while lying about OTHER things is NOT, is a totally baffling proposition. By definition, lying under oath is NEVER acceptable. It is beyond reasonableness to suggest that a person testifying UNDER OATH should be able to lie, without regard for the subject. What is the PURPOSE of the oath in the first place? If the judge felt the answer wasn't important, she would undoubtedly have said, "you don't have to answer that question". I'd appreciate your serious answer to the following: (1) Do you believe our judicial system will function if a WITNESS is permitted, without consequence, to decide on which subjects he will be truthful versus those in which he will lie? Should we abolish the concept of perjury altogether? (2) What is the purpose of the "oath"?

To: tejek who wrote (149753)	8/16/2002 11:30:01 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580442

What's so sick about the statement? Clinton was a better liar. That's not a comment about what they where lying about. Clinton was lying to hide that he was committing adultery. Nixon was lying to hide the fact that he had people burglarize Dem. headquarters. Clinton was committing perjury about adultery. I don't think Nixon perjured himself so the lies where not as bad as Clinton's lies. Also there is no evidence that Nixon had people burglarize the Dem. headquarters. What Nixon clearly did that was wrong was neither perjury nor conspiracy to commit burglary but rather obstruction of justice, which like perjury is a serious crime. Clinton may have also been guilty of obstruction of justice but this is less certain then either the fact that he perjured himself or the fact that Nixon was guilty of obstruction of justice. Tim