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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (833)	8/27/1998 10:09:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 67261

I wasn't off-topic, but responding directly to your post. What I was talking about was what was "the right thing to do". You said that Clinton "did the right thing" by lying about his extramarital affair to the Jones' Court, which was about a case of extramaritial obscenity (abruptly exposing his genitals to Paula). I said the "right thing to do" was Clinton had a responsibility to keep his marital vows to his wife, and he didn't do the right thing there, where it counted. So whether he lied or told the truth to in the Jones depo, didn't "clear his name" in re his adultery. A couple more things about this "blurbing to Starr his personal sex life": Monica had already "blurbed about Clinton's sex life" to Linda Tripp, for one. And in the process, was asking Linda Tripp (remember the talking points?) to commit a felony for Bill Clinton by concocting a phony cover story. At that point, Monica had already been moved to the Pentagon because too many people at the WH already knew about the affair. So Enough about this "Clinton being forced to spill his guts about his Sex Life": He made it virtually guaranteed to become common knowledge eventually by having sexual trysts with her inside the WH -- But Bill C. obviously didn't care about the harm that his sexual addiction was doing to his marriage. Okay, now I'll respond to your "off-topic" comment re What is worse in your eyes, a man that is unhappy in his marriage but stays because he "cant afford to get out of it" or someone that agrees on an "open" marriage with his wife for whatever reason and does have affairs? I am totally ignorant of this situation, because I have never in my entire life of 34 years hear a man say that he "is unhappy in his marriage but stays because he "cant afford to get out of it". How much does a divorce cost? You split the goods, and get on with your life. If the husband has to pay alimony or the wife has to pay palimony, then that's life. So you give up the 1997 Cherokee, and drive a 1988 Oldsmobile. They'll both get you down the road. If you want to drive a 1997 Cherokee and pay alimony, then have a high income - or else simply Choose your spouse more wisely. Some people are simply so self-centered that no matter who they marry, their spouse is going to eventually want out. In summ, the "open marriage" concept is so stupid and counter-productive to happiness that it's not worth debating. I'm not at all a fan of divorce, but why live with someone you dislike so much that you wish you were divorced. I guess maybe I just value my own personal happiness more than money.