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: i-node who wrote (150005)	8/19/2002 5:56:15 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570334

You are out of it........you infer that you're comparing a case involving K. lay and M. Lewinsky with Clinton and M. Lewinsky, and then turnaround and say the comparison case is Clinton and Paula Jones of which I know little about the particulars. How can you claim that Clinton's lie was "about sex" when you don't know even the basics of the lawsuit that was involved? Excuse me, I misunderstood your post............I missed the part early in your original post where you brought up Paula Jones. I had thought when you said Lewinsky you were comparing Lewinsky and Lay with Clinton and Lewinsky. As I said earlier, I know little about the details of the Paula Jones trial. However,I do know something of Ms. Jones and her version of her interaction with Clinton......she was living in San Diego when I was in LA. After reading it, I don't trust her version of the story and see her as another Tanya Harding. They may be trailer trash as you say......but what I see are two people who desperately want to climb the socio-economic ladder and will do it at almost any cost. I also have no respect for Clinton in this regard. He consistently preyed on women whom he could easily impress in order to feed his ego and his need for conquest. These women believed his lines, naively hoping that he would leave his wife and elevate their social status. Both sides got screwed literally and figuratively. Having said all that, I don't have the interest in these cases that you do, nor do I think see them as evidence of anything other than Clinton's weakness/vulnerability/demons that had not been addressed previously. By not addressing them, he's paid a dear price and shamed himself in front of an entire nation and made a ruin of his marriage.........very sad. Hiding the publisher of an article, implying one case when you mean another etc are differing levels of deceit I don't know what you're referring to, but I've never hidden the publisher of an article. I think my reference was perfectly clear in the analogy between the hypothetical and the Jones case. The article written by Novak had no publisher nor a link to it.