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 : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lazarre who wrote (17111)	7/20/1998 6:14:00 PM
From: cody andre	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Are you implying that Kirov = Vince Foster ?

To: lazarre who wrote (17111)	7/20/1998 9:54:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

Lazarre: I correct myself. In an earlier post I stated Clinton had refused to testify five times. I was wrong. He has actually refused six times. I'm genuinely interested in your response relative to my earlier post as to whether you recognize the difference between a legal certainty and that which common sense dictates. Also, would like to hear how the bill of rights is being dismantled, by whom and in what manner. JLA

To: lazarre who wrote (17111)	7/21/1998 1:23:00 AM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 20981

>>How do you know Clinton has not told the truth regarding Whitewater or the Lewinsky affair? Define "know." I don't know it buy the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Close, but not there yet. If I were arguing before a criminal jury on the basis of public information I would argue for aquittal. I DO know it by the civil standard of proof, more likely than not. If I were before a civil jury, I would ask for and get a verdict against Clinton. The evidence, for one who wants to look, is massive. Conclusive, no. Persuasive, yes. As to whether Clinton lies about his sexual escapades, we KNOW he does. He admitted the Flowers affair after denying it for years.

To: lazarre who wrote (17111)	7/21/1998 6:07:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 20981

>>Read Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler---it is a chronicle of the Stalin witch hunts of the 30's. The parallels are striking. That's funny, because you are the closet thing to a a Stalinist here. In fact, your defense of Clinton is striking in that it parallels the defense of Stalin by the US Left in the 1950's. It did not matter what he did, so long as he advanced Leftism. There are some with politics like you who to this day still defend Stalin. You have also misread Orwell, as "1984" is best understood as an attack by Orwell on the totalitarian state, a product of the left. "Newspeak" is akin the political correctness advanced by the Dems today. In "Animal Farm" Orwell increasingly saw the Left as the threat as he satirized communism.