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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LesX who wrote (81)	8/19/1998 5:37:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Resisting temptation is not the issue. Its lying under oath, suborning perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of office. No one expects the President to be perfect. I don't. But I don't expect him to commit felonies to avoid some personal embarassment. JLA

To: LesX who wrote (81)	8/19/1998 5:40:00 PM
From: alan w	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

But knowing the consequences if you were to be caught, would you continue to do it over and over. You're acting like this was a one time deal. This was (and probably still is, with someone else) a pattern that has been going on since he was the governor of Ark. alan w

To: LesX who wrote (81)	8/20/1998 11:28:00 AM
From: j_b	Respond to of 67261

<<Starr should be banished for his McCarthy-like, unpatriotic persecution of our President>> This attitude is scary. The President is not above the law, and is the only person I know of that actually has the power to fire the person prosecuting his case. Holding the President to the same laws as everyone else is not unpatriotic, but granting the President king-like status is (at least in this country). We fought a war to get rid of that system. Regarding the rest of your comments - I think we would all agree that there are limits to what is acceptable behavior - for example, we would not condone a the President committing child abuse or murder. Hopefully, we also agree that some latitude is necessary - we wouldn't vote for impeachment because the President gave his underage daughter a glass of wine to drink with dinner, even though it would be contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The question is, where do we draw the line? For example, this sort of impropriety from a Republican would have the feminists and many liberals screaming for blood, but because it's a Democrat, forgiveness is the key. For die-hard nationalists and hard-line Republicans, Iran-Contra was okay because it was for a good cause, but when Carter's ill-fated rescue attempt of the hostages failed, he was vilified as a know-nothing incompetent. Not to mention that despicable "lusted in my heart" stuff!! We certainly can't have a leader that does that <g>!! Both sides are guilty of gross hypocrisy, where the ends justify the means. This argument isn't about sex, lies or videotapes, it's about politics. Let Starr do his job - if Clinton hasn't done anything criminal, it will become a strictly political issue very quickly, and very likely nothing will be done beyond a censure. If he has done something criminal, the people really do have a right to know.