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: Ann Corrigan who wrote (2844)	8/24/1998 9:08:00 AM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

doesn't he represent the morals of the majority of his generation? I wish we had a president that represented the best instead of the worst morals in his generation. "ELECT CLINTON, HE'S JUST ABOUT AS BAD AS YOU!!"

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (2844)	8/24/1998 11:06:00 AM
From: Liatris Spicata	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Ann- Apparently you don't expect him to be honest about historical references either (church burnings). Guess you don't much care that his little missus makes a cool $100,000 in the commodities markets from "his friends". A lifelong pattern of dissembling seems not to affect your estimation of Bill Clinton's suitability to the office of President of the United States. Best I can determine, you place precious little value on integrity in the Oval Office. I suggest that means you have little respect either for integrity, or the office of Presidency of the United States, or both. I notice you did not bother to answer the questions I posed to you. You simply cast a slur on "those who fail to support out Pres.". Perhaps in your mind that constitutes an answer. ----------------------------------------------------------------- <Why do you expect Pres. Clinton to be the only man in the U.S. who is perfectly honest about his sex life?....doesn't he represent the morals of the majority of his generation?>> You have a very cynical view of men. Must say something about the kind of with whom men you associate. I know plenty of men of Clinton's generation, including myself, who do not, have not and would not lie about their personal lives. I resent your implication that I have. Further, it is most impressive that you defend the President of the United States based on the morality of what you think is "the majority". I expect more of the holder of that office than what "the majority" may do. Larry P.S. An honest person, when faced with a question he does not wish to answer, might respond with, "That is a question I'm not going to dignify with a response". To Bill Clinton, the normal action is to lie.

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (2844)	8/24/1998 12:00:00 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

I take more exception to the intellectual dishonesty with which Clinton and others deal with issues of Health Care, Welfare, Education, and Social Security. But then, one would not expect honesty from those who designed these monstrosities. Politicians never admit their mistakes --- they just use scare tactics to try to get more money to bail out their mistakes.

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (2844)	8/24/1998 2:25:00 PM
From: RJC2006	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

<<<Why do you expect Pres. Clinton to be the only man in the U.S. who is perfectly honest about his sex life?....doesn't he represent the morals of the majority of his generation?>>> Because he is President and that in itself holds him to a higher standard. Criminal behavior aside, it amazes me how many out there think that it is so damn difficult for a man to not commit adultery. PLEASE! Will someone PLEASE tell me why it is so difficult to refrain from adultery. Someone please convince me that the human soul doesn't have a choice when behaving in such a way. He may very well represent the morals of the majority of his generation but his generation isn't the only one he should be representing. The morals of his generation, whatever they are, still do nothing in the way of pardoning him of law-breaking and criminality. <<< In addition, those who fail to support our Pres. when he takes action to stop the cowardly terrorists who blew up many innocent people, remind me of the way the boomers provided comfort to the enemies of democracy years ago & hobbled their own Pres. with their actions.>>> It's not even remotely close Ann and you know it. There are few on here that are protesting military action. Remember, the chant from these same boomers who support Clinton today back then was "Hey, hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" These people were nothing short of socialists. The majority of the complaints concerning Mr. Clinton's policy is that it doesn't go far enough and is only window dressing.

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (2844)	8/25/1998 12:19:00 AM
From: pezz	Respond to of 13994

Tell me Ann did you expect the boomers to have supported the then current president even if they disagreed with him? I find it interesting that you categorize honest opposition in this way. Do you support all Presidents no matter what they do?It makes your support of Clinton here a little suspect.I am a boomer,male and I support Clinton based on what is known so far.Yet during the Viet Nam area I did not support either Johnson or Nixon.Your pathetic comments about giving support and comfort to the enemy do not intimidate me any more than they did when uttered by Nixon supporters many years ago. pez

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (2844)	8/25/1998 12:36:00 AM
From: daniel dsouza	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Ann, I find it disgusting that so many women still support Clinton. I fully believe in the fallibility of wo/man, that's why there's honest contrition. Clinton's attitude during the "confession" was full of arrogance. Throughout his campaign & term in office he has demonstrated a psychopathic behavior of hiding the truth like a little boy, until he is caught with his hand in the cookie jar. What makes me sick is that he did it to a nineteen year old while on the job. This is an opportunistic moment for all women to rally against men who abuse their daughters.

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (2844)	9/11/1998 1:28:00 PM
From: Liatris Spicata	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

Ann- You have made it very clear that discourse with you is a waste of time. For example, you have declined to answer in any meaningful way the several questions I have asked you. When challenged to defend Clinton's lying, you refer to lying on the part of someone else (a former state trooper). You also seem quite free to engage in unsubstantiated slurs against the character of Mr. Starr and indeed all men of Bill Clinton's generation. So this post does not invite a response from you- I am using you as a foil. While the Starr report that you have so disparaged has not, to my knowledge, been released, some of its contents have leaked. His investigation reportedly charges: 1) Bill Clinton perjured himself when he testified in the Paula Jones (PJ) case that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky; 2) Sleazebag Bill (SB) again perjured himself before a criminal grand jury last month when he acknowledged the "relationship" but said his earlier remarks were legally accurate; 3) SB orchestrated an obstruction of justice in the PJ case by persuading Monica not to testify to a relationship and getting others to offer her inducements not to do so; 4) SB tampered with witnesses in the PJ case, including possibly his own staff; 5) SB abused presidential power by using White House lawyers and other government officials to delay and obstruct Starr's investigation (thereby contributing significantly to the $40+ million price tag you so decry). These are charges, which if proven, would land an ordinary citizen in jail. I cannot imagine the mentality that seeks to absolve the President from complying with such basic requirements. I would also point out that impeaching a president should not, IMO, require quite the standard of legal proof that a criminal trial ought to impose. To those of us who value integrity on the part of a chief executive, even the preponderance of evidence of serious impropriety is sufficient to remove him (or her) from office. I understand you place a different value on integrity. What appears to emerge from Mr. Starr's report is much more than "just about sex", which is what people of your ilk try to reduce the charges to. It describes a deeply corrupt man bent on thwarting legal process to sustain himself in power. It also describes a contemptible, self-serving liar. Your complaint about the price tag of the Starr investigation- ordered by no less than the Defender of Ruby Ridge- is simply carping. Starr has 14 convictions to date, including the (ex) governor or Arkansas, a state well-known for sleazy politicians. It boggles the mind that you fault Mr. Starr for investigating serious charges on the part of Sleazebag Bill and other public officials. Despite your unsubstantiated slurs against his motives, I have no reason to believe Kenneth Starr is pursuing more than a finely honed sense of political and legal duty. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for your disparagement of Mr. Starr's motives and effort he and his team have put forth- unless of course, you indeed have some evidence for your claim, in which case I invite you to substantiate your claim. I can only speculate at your real motives for defending a man like Bill Clinton. I for one am grateful that a man of Starr's stature would sacrifice his own immediate professional goals for what I would imagine is a dreary task. Removing a sitting president is a matter of the utmost political gravity. But Congress has an obligation to act on these serious charges. Or, if Bill Clinton has a scintilla of concern for the effect the difficult process of impeachment entails, let him resign the office to which people like you entrusted him. Larry