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: alan w who wrote (981)	8/28/1998 12:00:00 PM
From: j_b	Respond to of 67261

<<Obviously, I would lie when confronted with the above(Nazi Israelite question). On non life or death questions when under oath, I would tell the truth.>> We agree on this. The point I hope to get across to many people is that the concept of moral absolutism is difficult to defend because of these types of issues. If you have an underlying (pardon the pun) philosophy (a moral compass), you have something to use to assess each situation. It is far too simplistic to say, for example, that it's always wrong to lie, Bill Clinton lied, therefore, he is evil. If you've read my prior posts, you know that I'm no fan of Clinton. I just don't like to see arguments based on the "I'd never lie under oath" basis, because no one knows what they would do until confronted with the situation. I do believe you believe you would never lie under oath (with the obvious exception we discussed), but you just never know until it happens. It is so easy to "not volunteer" information. As a matter of fact, your lawyer would insist you follow that path. How much information do you need to present before your testimony would be considered to not be misleading? Is it your job (as a witness) to answer the questions as they are asked, or to answer the question you think the attorney really meant to ask. If you strongly disagree with the case being tried, or really think the attorney is out of line with his/her questions, how much leeway do you have to not cooperate?

To: alan w who wrote (981)	8/28/1998 12:14:00 PM
From: micny	Respond to of 67261

In Clinton's case, he lied because he is a moral degenerate. He is so used to lying, he knows no other way to respond when he's gotten himself in trouble. He thought NOTHING of the people his lying hurt, of those gullible/ignorant/loyal followers he betrayed or the impact of his lie on them . He thought nothing of the fact that HE KNEW he was calling someone he apparently convinced he cared about a liar when she was not. He cared only about one person, himself. In no way shape of form can rational people blame Starr. Had Clinton told the truth, Starr would not have had to DO HIS DUTY on behalf of the government and the American people by proving the truth. And the "I just don't have any idea how those billing records came to be found on the chair in our living quarters" denials by Hillary suggests that she is his moraly degenrate equivalent. They are both pathetic human beings and neither deserves our respect.