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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suma who wrote (53344)	8/12/2004 5:27:49 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

The strongest statement that one human being can make in reference to another is one that impugns the honor of that person. I read what you said about the troopers. They lied, it was proven that they lied, and that they retracted their statements about Clinton. We all experience a material world. It seems like a very sparse minority of people are living in it but not of it. So, I can easily imagine law enforcement persons who would accept a payoff to do or say something unethical or illegal. However, what you posted is not convincing. ” Blinded by the Right, David Borck who said that the American Spectator had sought out and then paid the troopers to come forward with that story about Clinton. He was personally involved in the attack.” You report that the troopers were paid a high fee to provide their comments on the record. This doesn’t, by itself support the statement you made that it was proven that they lied. In most cases for a high profile story people are paid well for their interview. Monica did quite well with the media during this same period. Right? It is quite possible to “attack” someone with statements and at the same time be telling the truth. Members of the republican party who had skeletons in their closets were “attacked” during this period as well. So, confessing to wanting to harm Clinton or even being paid for it does not prove the statements to be lies. ”Clinton's own book My Life wherein he discusses the incident and how it died of ennui because it was proven that the troopers were lying.” Again I must ask, What proof? ”He in fact knew so many of them and they were a bit embarrassed to have betrayed him in such a fashion.” It is true that if they colluded with him to bring women and later reported it, that they had betrayed a confidence and in that sense violated a trust. The same kind of person could be paid to tell lies, but I assume they would consider the consequences. Telling such a lie an act of the most egregious slander that I can imagine. Telling a lie that could unseat the most powerful man in the world from the office of President of the United States, for a bribe? That is so hard to imagine because the punishment SHOULD be so severe. Your statement again was “Proven”. Not by what you have posted thus far. And, in fact, since it is you calling the State Troopers of Arkansas liars, the honorable thing for you to do is either prove it or do what ever you can to correct that allegation. All the State Troopers, and a dozen or so women who he had confidential associations with are clinton hating liars??? Wow, if so, he is a really poor judge of character when it comes to personal associations. C'mon now Suma, somethin' doesn't add up here. Like I said, the clinton phenomena continues to boggle me.