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: Rick Slemmer who wrote (17302)	7/23/1998 5:23:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

No, No, NO! You don't understand. Clinton didn't lie about not having an affair with Flowers. He said she was wrong when she said they had a five year (or whaterver it was) affair. It was a shorter affair he had. He never actually denied that he had any sexual relations with Flowers. He only lies when it's necessary, and the press was so nice to him that they took his denial and interpreted it as a normal person would, not as a pathological deceiver would. Same thing with Lewinsky. If you define oral sex out of adultery, he didn't commit adultery with her. Basically, if you define the term "moral standards" as a null meaning term, you can truthfully state that you have never violated any moral standards. When I was a debate coach I told my students I would take any side of any debate topic they chose and beat them. How? Simple. I simply demanded the right to define the terms. And as any debater knows (and Clinton knows well) he who gets to define the terms wins the argument. Every time. If you think of Clinton not as a liar but simply as an amoral person defining his terms as he wants to you will begin to understand him. But not until then.