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: j_b who wrote (1004)	8/28/1998 2:34:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

<<especially if you saw almost no chance of the truth coming out.>> This is where the real delusion emerges. How could he have ever believed there was no chance of it coming out? His judgment is truly flawed and he needs to step down.

To: j_b who wrote (1004)	8/28/1998 3:19:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Well, disagree all you want, but if he thought "he is the only one that is in a position", then I think that type of self-exhalted view is indicative of a person with a severe psychological disorder. Especially if they use that "reasoning" to justify illegal and immoral acts. The presidency has a line of succession, as do most corporate entities that are structured to deal with the possibility of a circumstance which would cause their removal, be it health, family concerns, you name it. The level of arrogance needed to cause a leader to think that only he/she can do the job is truly reflective of a self-absorbed individual with an inflated view of their capabilities. bp

To: j_b who wrote (1004)	8/28/1998 3:45:00 PM
From: alan w	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

This makes no sense. Would you rather have Roger Clemens pitching in the bottom of the ninth if his arm was completely worn out, or bring in a fresh reliever. We actually got along without Clinton before 92, and we will continue to do so after he leaves. The question is when will he leave, now or in 2000. The draw the line scenario sounds good (to you and Michelle) using life or death situations. We, however, are not the ones who should draw the line. Everyone has examples where they have lied or would lie. Clinton is in a position of trust(that's an understatement), therefore the expectations of him are higher than they are for us. Everything we say is not on public display. If it were, we would adapt to being scrutinized. We would have to think before we spoke. He doesn't because he doesn't care about anything but himself. Michelle, would you lie to get your 11 year old into the movies at 10 year old prices? If so, would you lie about it under oath, or to the camera? I don't think so. alan w

To: j_b who wrote (1004)	8/28/1998 5:17:00 PM
From: RJC2006	Respond to of 67261

<<Unfortunately, I disagree with you both. If the world political situation were in a state of turmoil, and a strong U.S. was necessary to prevent further chaos, a change of President would probably be worse than lying to stay in as President, especially if you saw almost no chance of the truth coming out. Of all the people in the world, I think the President of the U.S, whoever it might be, is the most likely to actually have as much power as they think they do.>>> Yeah, just ask any German.