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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (1200)	8/15/1998 2:36:00 PM
From: alan w	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Stop imposing your Ken Starr opinions on us. If my moral opinions don't agree with yours, so what. They are after all, only opinions. I thought these threads were for people to express themselves. Tell me, where do you draw the moral(or immoral) line? What were your reactions to Hillary's accusations toward Bush being in an adulterous affair? alan w

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (1200)	8/15/1998 2:45:00 PM
From: Rick Slemmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Michelle: . It is Ken Starr who has taken advantage of Monica, in order to advance himself politically after his blankmind attempt at destroying the Clintons with Whitewater. Here we go again. OK, by the numbers: 1. Ken Starr did not ask for this job. He was appointed by Janet Reno to investigate wrongdoing in Whitewater, Filegate, and now the Lewinsky mess. Before that, Reno had to be convinced that an investigation was warranted based on preliminary evidence that crimes had been committed. 2. Every penny of the investigation's cost, and every facet of the investigative trail is expressly authorized by the Attorney General's Office. 3. If Ken Starr is "on a witchhunt," or if Ken Starr is "out of control," or if Ken Starr is "poking around the President's personal life," either the Attorney General or the President can terminate his involvement immediately. Nixon fired Siroca; Clinton can fire Starr. The question then becomes: why doesn't he? RS

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (1200)	8/15/1998 4:37:00 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Michelle, I disagree with both you and jla about whether Monica was a victim or just a "consenting adult." IMHO, she was actively chasing Clinton, and he was willing to be caught. Based mostly on what has not been said, I think that she and her mother were involved in a conspiracy to "golddig" Clinton. Hence, she kept the dress as proof. Also hence, Monica's mom's distress as she walked out of the Grand Jury. Also hence, Monica's insistence on transactional immunity. I don't have an opinion about whether she wanted to blackmail Clinton or to write a "kiss and tell" (spit and tell?) book. But, jla, she's no "innocent young girl;" and Michelle, she's not just another "infatuated groupie" wanting to jump his bones. BWDIK jim

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (1200)	8/15/1998 10:04:00 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 13994

MH: I was expressing my opinion. Unless I woke up in China this morning, I'd say I have a perfect right to do so. I've noticed that anytime a liberal disagrees with you and doesn't have a good counterargument it becomes an issue of "morals". And of course liberals don't believe in morals or any other objective way to measure human behavior, eg, adultery is wrong under ANY circumstances. Either that or they call you a Nazi or a blankmind or some other similarly silly label. Pathetic. So let me say again that if Mr. Clinton had a sexual relationship in the WH with a 21 year old intern, he was just acting immorally and reprehensibly. Sometimes the truth hurts. JLA