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: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (4665)	9/11/1998 1:20:00 AM
From: DD™	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Klin-toon Still Defiant.. Excerpt.. "The participants said Shalala rejected what she took as Clinton's implication that policies and programs were more important than whether he provided moral leadership. "And then she said something like, 'I can't believe that is what you're telling us, that is what you believe, that you don't have an obligation to provide moral leadership,'," one participant recalled. "She said something like 'I don't care about the lying, but I'm appalled at the behavior.' And frankly, he [Clinton] whacked her, let her have it," this source said.The president told Shalala that if her logic had prevailed in 1960, Richard M. Nixon would have been elected president instead of John F. Kennedy, the source said. After that, no other Cabinet member had anything critical to say, the participant added. Shalala declined to give any interviews after the session. " washingtonpost.com If anyone thinks this goof is going to exit voluntarily, the have another thing coming!!! DD

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (4665)	9/11/1998 9:31:00 AM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

<<So in your view, D. Floyd, John F. Kennedy shouldn't have been President because he was a Catholic? >> How did you get from a statement regarding not having religion be an official part of government, to an idea that no one professing to follow a religion should be allowed in government? The two ideas have nothing in common. Any politician is free to follow their religious beliefs and have those beliefs influence their conduct and their votes. What they are NOT free to do, is to insist that everyone follow those beliefs or be excluded from participation in government or society. There can be no state religion. The society itself will determine what behavior is acceptable, not the government.