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 (4159)	9/8/1998 6:48:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

But it did NOT happen. Your argument is hypothetical, Clinton has admitted his misdeeds (but not until after he was cornered.) JLA

To: Doughboy who wrote (4159)	9/8/1998 7:14:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

<<then put Bush under oath and had him lie. If that is true (which is arguable) then Bush is morally no better than Clinton, he's just luckier>> I'm going to make a major presumption here and speak for the people that have been disagreeing with you over the Bush issue. Your comments regarding practicing moral relativism (as it relates to the Bush discussion) would only be true if you believe that Bush would have lied about an affair while under oath. The people disagreeing with you most likely do NOT think Bush would have done that. He would more likely have responded the way Dan Burton did, with a complete confession, during which we would find out that, while he did something wrong by having an affair, he did what he could to make up for it. If it was found that Bush lied under oath, and the Clinton-bashers supported him blindly anyway, you would have a valid point. However, it wasn't, they haven't, and you don't <g>.

To: Doughboy who wrote (4159)	9/8/1998 9:45:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 13994

>> If you all recall, this whole thing began because I said that it would have been very easy to have filed some kind of lawsuit against Bush for abuse of office (e.g., using official trips as a way to bed Ms. Fitzgerald) or sexual harassment (filed byFitzgerald) and then put Bush under oath and had him lie. If that is true (which is arguable) then Bush is morally no better than Clinton, he's just luckier. And then all the same arguments that you use against Clinton (my god, he lied point-blank to Stone Phillips and the American people; he sent his own son out to call it a lie when he knew it wasn't; etc.) are the same for him. Presidents lie for convenience and political expediency. Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton. And they've all probably done it under oath too (remember Iran-Contra?). You guys are just as guilty as me at practicing moral relativism. Ridiculous. You just make it you as you go along to make your guys seem less reprehensible that they really are. You do more than practice sophistry, you apply it with a trowel. Clinton is going down and no amount of your exaggerated shilling can save him from himself and his fate. Enjoy!