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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (1659)	5/28/2003 2:01:26 PM
From: TigerPaw	Respond to of 20773

Clinton's private life ended when the Bush Sr. people realised that he was a formidable champion of the middle class. That threatened the neocon takeover. The old neocons like Rumsfeld and Cheney were getting worried that they would die before they would have their chance to play Age of Empires. They stopped at nothing to distort the facts and events that concluded the millenium. They still stop at nothing, but their own excesses will be their unmaking. TP

To: Greg or e who wrote (1659)	5/28/2003 2:03:14 PM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Clinton's private life ended when he swore to tell the truth and then lied to the court. His private life does not allow him to sexually force himself upon women. Why the double standard for him? Bank robbers have private lives to should we ignore their behavior as well? There is some truth to your post but I think most Americans feel that the money wasted on teh investigation and the focus by opponents was worse than the "crime." I think he was foolish in doing what he did. There is no credible evidence whatsover that he ever "forced" himself on women. He had willing, albeit misguided, recipients. He was very foolish. Yet there was no need to spend $60 million on the investigation. If the Pope were to be investigated with that many resources, I bet you'd find some surprising details. Without that wasted effort, the Press still would have discovered the salacious details. I am not a Clinton supporter in general but I find it very foolish to waste time arguing about his sexual indiscretions. Should he have gone after terrorists with more zeal? Yes . OTOH, his administration had much upon which history will bring praise, but that's another story.

To: Greg or e who wrote (1659)	5/28/2003 8:57:02 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 20773

Clinton's private life ended when he swore to tell the truth and then lied to the court. Beyond that, of course, was his oath to suport and defend the Constitution. Somehow I can't find it in my heart to consider commiting perjury in a court proceeding as supporting and defending Constitutional principles. Can anybody here explain how committing perjury--threatening the very foundation on which our legal system is based, since we hve abandoned torture as a mechanism for assuring the truthfulness of statements made in court -- is consistent with one's oath of office and one's role as the head of the Department of Justice of the US?