SI
SI
discoversearch

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: TimF who wrote (191370)6/22/2004 2:31:52 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1573336
 
If Clinton had been single, I'd see NOTHING wrong with what he did -- not even a little wrong.

Having sex with a subordinate in the office and then lying about it under oath isn't even a little bit wrong?

Let me see......lying about WMDs and al Qa'ida links vs lying about a BJ. Yes, lying about the BJ is wrong but in the grand scheme of things, fairly petty. Now lying about WMDs that led to a multi billion dollar war and is costing us the lives of many Americans.......now that's major.

Why is we can see that lying about BJs is wrong but you can't see why lying about Iraq is even more wrong?

And if you answer that Bush didn't lie, then my response is neither did Clinton.

ted



To: TimF who wrote (191370)6/22/2004 2:33:23 PM
From: SilentZ  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573336
 
>Having sex with a subordinate in the office and then lying about it under oath isn't even a little bit wrong?

I meant nothing wrong with what he did which led to him having to be under oath... he should not have lied, but he shouldn't have been there in the first place -- he was cornered.

-Z


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News