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: halfscot who wrote (763)	8/26/1998 3:58:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

halfscot - re What I don't understand, ...is... Heck if I knew the president representing my party will have no chance to further the Democratic agenda with his remaining term I would want him out as I did with Nixon. psssst - it's that river in Egypt - you know - "de-nile" Back when Clinton did his finger-wagging "I dina do 'er" speech, I told an adamant Clinton supporter that I was personally almost postitive that BC was lying, and that BC was playing a dangerous game - because if it were ever "proven" i.e. I referenced possible dna evidence on the dress (remember the dress was known about from the get-go, even before Slick's "dina doer" speech), or for whatever reason the public became convinced that Slick had probably been lying - that Slick was going to be in serious trouble: lying about sex, "save the marriage", political expediancy, whatever - I and I don't think anyone appreciates having a finger jabbed at them by the President and be practically commanded to believe something - when their intuition and common sense says it's not true - and then have that person come out later and acknowledge they lied (when the figurative gun is a fraction of an inch from their temple). And No, it's not simply a matter of the President saying he "regrets" that, and it's all over. The idea is that if anyone, but Most Particularly the President is going to forcefully and publicly insist something is true, Backing up a deposition made under oath in Federal Court, and Spend who-knows how much in taxpayer dollars with phony stonewalls, then it darn well better Be True, period. It is utterly important that our President never willfully take the American people for a joyride on things like "what is truth". I don't think I'm so out of the ordinary. But back in January, I asked a staunch Clinton co-conspirator just how far they would take their support - was there a limit, to where they would think of limiting the damage to their political party, by acknowledging that it might be better to have Clinton go? The answer they gave was to the effect that I was exaggerating, that it simply wasn't that serious. "It's just a simple sex issue, nowhere near as serious as Watergate, etc." But people are slowly beginning to realize that this isn't about simple sex - it's about gross abuse of public trust.