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: jim kelley who wrote (2619)	9/12/1998 11:00:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

>So you think that the issue is strictly a legal issue. If you do not get caught and you are not accused in a court of law then it is OK. Did I get that right? You are talking about legalities not moralities? This is somewhat frustrating to me, and I wonder if you are being honest. 1. In a rather oblique general and irrelevant attack upon Mr. Clinton's foes, you stated "[t]o err is human, to forgive is divine!" (your message #2592). 2. Mr. Martenson responded by claiming that neither errors nor divine forgiveness are "the policy of the Federal Law, code of conduct, common decency and adult responsibility when you are given a position unique on the planet for it's responsibility, and moral authority." (Martenson's #2599) 3. You responded to Mr. Martenson with the unfounded claim that if we were to adopt his standards, we would be compelled to "remove between 60 to 80 % of your elected officials from office." (your message #2602) 4. Mr. Martenson's reply seemed to me to condemn Mr. Clinton on the basis of his notion of secular law and secular human relations, not the divine relations to which you referred. (Though Mr. Martenson may well have religious beliefs that inform him he should reject Mr. Clinton out of hand). His point was that divine forgiveness is not the policy of law, etc, etc., and that therefore we are forced to judge Mr. Clinton by another standard. He seems to be judging Mr. Clinton on the simple basis of law and current (and ever shifting) secular morality. Therefore, I posted to you (#2610) that I suspect your reply to him is quite false. My rationale: If Mr. Martenson condemns Mr. Clinton on the basis of Federal Law, code of conduct, common decency, etc., etc., then he must condemn on the basis of actions. For him to do this, he must first know of the actions to be judged. He must then compare the actions to the standard he described to see if they conflict with it. If the actions are unknown (and in the case of your %60-%80 of elected officials who you imply are involved in inappropriate sexual relationships and who remain in office and who have not filtered through our legal process, the actions are presumably unknown - unless you have the goods on them), then I would wager Mr. Martenson would have no problem with them remaining in office, since he cannot judge them as unfit by his standard. Thus your statement would be revealed here to be false, and we would see it can by no means be used to deflect a thrust against Mr. Clinton. The reason it is a powerless defense is because in Mr. Clinton's case, the actions are well known, certified, and able to be judged. He has lied to the American people, this, in addition to the American courts, this, in an attempt to deny justice to another American. We know this about Mr. Clinton. We do not know anything of the sort about your %60-%80 of elected officials.