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: Doughboy who wrote (3776)	9/3/1998 8:24:00 PM
From: Who, me?	Respond to of 13994

DougHboy, certainly your head is not as deep in the sand as you lead us to believe. Perjury, obstruction of justice, abuse of power, suborning perjury, contempt of court...how many more do you want. The train is heading down the track, picking up steam and the fat lady in the caboose is clearing her throat. Ground control to Major Tom.

To: Doughboy who wrote (3776)	9/3/1998 8:24:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

NO, NO, NO! As you DNC boys need to learn, the truth always wins. And the truth about that story is that it was a partisan myth. Period. The truth about Clinton has yet to emerge, but it's on it's way. Thank goodness.

To: Doughboy who wrote (3776)	9/3/1998 8:35:00 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 13994

Wrong again. The difference is Bush did not lie under oath. JLA

To: Doughboy who wrote (3776)	9/3/1998 9:17:00 PM
From: halfscot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

DougHboy: The big difference is, and always has been, Bush wasn't asked these questions under oath. If he was and it was shown he lied then yes to all your foregoing statements. We have a rule of law in this country, not a rule of convenience or moral relativity. It's one thing to be asked the question and lie to the public/wife/friends/cohorts, etc. but it's another to lie to the bench. For Lanny Davis, et. al., to sit there so pompous and ask if we should have prosecuted FDR for committing adultery goes to the heart of the deception. Clinton is not getting beat up over committing adultery, for the umteenth time, it's his lying under oath, obstruction, and...you know the rest. It was like seeing Chris Rock on the Tonite Show the other night. He kept going on about what is Clinton guilty of? Leno should have asked, "what was Nixon guilty of?" Actually Nixon wasn't found 'guilty' of anything but if he hadn't resigned and been given a pardon he would have been found guilty of the same things Clinton may be found guilty of...and it wasn't the either of breaking and entering or committing adultery. The vehicle may be different but the destination is the same. halfscot