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 (149919)	8/18/2002 10:33:52 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570088

I explained my position. Aside from the ridicule you gave it, I am not surprised that you don't understand what I said and why you think I did not answer your questions YOU NEVER RESPONDED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: So, let's assume there is no "crime" (i.e., it is a civil trial, which it was). People should be allowed to lie in civil trials at will? There is no crime, thus ALL lying is tolerable. You say Clinton's lie involved no crime so it doesn't matter. I say that is a slap in the face of the civil justice system, and the proposition is totally untenable. So let me understand. YOU THINK IN CIVIL MATTERS (no crime involved) ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO LIE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO SO WITHOUT PENALTY OF PERJURY OR OTHER CONSEQUENCES? Or does this rule just apply to liberal Democrats, or what?