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.

Technology Stocks : Compaq -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ed who wrote (14850)	1/25/1998 4:28:00 PM
From: hpeace	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

ed, so what was his answer. I repeat, if he encouraged someone to lie under oath then he is taost. right now we do not know the truth . even the tapes that are transcibed and in the paper today don't have to be the truth. those are a conversation between the girl and a lawyer and aren't necesarily the truth in the event. so, you still evaded my post. if it is proved he encouraged someone to lie under oath..then he will have to resign. if you think the news media is going to let up on this..forget it. most newspeople have morals worse than clinton and they will not let up. it's not me. I'm stting back and waiting for the truth. but, to tell the media not to bring it up is living in a fairy land. as for me personally, I have no stones to throw at clinton even though I disagree him on many issues. I have enough trouble keeping myself on the straight and narrow, there isn't much left to throw at others for stumbling. I do think that if he would have done as King David did with his sin with Bethseba and confessed publically like in Psalms 51 . then this would have been over. that is if he has anything to confess.

To: ed who wrote (14850)	1/25/1998 5:29:00 PM
From: joseph w renfrow	Respond to of 97611

While not a Clinton fan...all I say is that this is nothing new. Politicians have been dropping their pants ever since they have had an office to drop them in! The only one this should be upsetting to is Hillary and by all accounts it looks like she should be used to this by now....What was her name...Ms. Flowers? And by the way ...What in the devil does Clinton's sexual antics have to do with the price of CPQ anyway, or any other stock....Get Real!!!!

To: ed who wrote (14850)	1/25/1998 6:28:00 PM
From: Andreas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

To Ed. There is a fundamental difference between what you believe is the appropriate standard of conduct and behavior for the president of the United States and what probably the majority of Americans believe is the appropriate standard of conduct and behavior. Whether or not Clinton had sex with a 21 year old is important from a moral and character perspective and is ultimately left to voters. This situation has nothing to do with that!! I repeat - Clinton's problems have nothing to do with adulterly! The question - Should someone who is the president of the United States (and who is already legally married) be permitted to retain their job as president if they are found to have had an adulterous affair with a 21 year old while in office is arguably a political and moral question best left to voters in a democracy. HOWEVER, this is NOT about that issue. Everyone in the United States is obligated to tell the truth when under oath and subject to the penalties of perjury. If it is shown that Clinton disregarded this obligation (which we all are required to live by) then Clinton must be subjected to and suffer the same penalties that would be faced by the average American citizen. Telling a lie under a oath is an indictable offense in the United States. If you don't like that premise then too bad. There are plenty of people serving jail time today for one reason and one reason only - they lied under oath. Clinton is no exception. The President does not have the right to lie under oat!!! Period!! That's all she wrote!!