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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (51359)	6/23/2004 6:08:16 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793677

Clinton apparently never lied about the Jones matter. I think the guy has been a predator ever since he got some political clout in Arkansaw. His problem was he was just sleazy. No way out of it. A really outstanding con man. Which is not bad to have as a trait for a top politican. I knew when this book came out that we would be a Clinton juke box for a week or so. I just don't want to fight the old wars. I was never one of the Clinton haters. By the time he got in I was too busy making money to worry about Washington. Now that I am retired and a political junky, I would rather spend the time on what is going to affect the future. I haven't posted one tenth of the stuff I have read on Clinton the last few days. I have tried to stay with anything new that came out, such as his admission that he lied to the Grand Jury about when he started his Monica affair. He said in the book that it was 95, not 96, as he told them. Looking back, the Republicans should have settled for censure, but their blood was up.

To: frankw1900 who wrote (51359)	6/23/2004 10:03:34 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793677

Re: Clinton and Paula Jones. Whether he lied depends on what the definition of "lie" is. Clinton first said he didn't know who she was, then said, yes, he knew her but had never been alone with her, then later said, yes, he had in fact been alone with her, but only once...then settled for $850,000 after her case had been dismissed and it was on appeal, but before it was remanded back for trial. Recall that the Supremes allowed the case to go forward while he was in the Presidency. The damaging testimony would have come out at the trial. Classic legal tactics. Knew he was in trouble, worked the system for time, went for the legal technicalities, then settled for a fairly nice chunk of change that mostly paid for Jones' legal bills, ensuring that the folks with the damaging information wouldn't do anything with it. C2@beentheredonethat.com

To: frankw1900 who wrote (51359)	6/23/2004 1:07:14 PM
From: Neeka	Respond to of 793677

BTW I think the PC and feminist talk about the Monica affair being an abuse of his position is nonsense. He was foolish and indiscreet, but she pursued him. This is how it started: I forgave him his indiscretion, but then again, I wasn't his wife or daughter. I really didn't want it to be true, but when I found out it was, I forever looked at him through a different prism. The "I just couldn't help myself, she pursued me" argument is a huge cop out and the most demeaning excuse of all imo. It is also one of the main reasons many women...and men....lost faith in BC. Loyalty and fidelity are two of the most important commitments a man can make. Once he proves he isn't capable of honoring those commitments he permanently loses any credibility and trust he may have ever enjoyed. He disappointed millions of women in this country that revere those traits in a man and became just another man.....I think we all expect more from our president....a man with extraordinary strength, morals and character. If I were a man I wouldn't want BC to be held up as the perfect example. M