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: dougjn who wrote (3122)	9/16/1998 11:38:00 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>You seem to have a very religiously colored view of public affairs. I do not share it.< Obviously not, but my view stems from a consistent application of a standard of decency to life, as opposed to the more arbitrary compartmentalization, and often complete rejection of standards, this, to support a quasi-nihilistic mode of existence. My view is ever aware that the members of any civilized society depend upon one another, much as do the members of a family, and that when any societal member flagrantly abuses the simple moral ideal of honesty, by nature another member of society is harmed, this, despite whether or not the former member is able to effectively supply our nation's restrooms with toiletries. If we fail to measure men by their words and deeds, we imply they may live like scoundrels and yet garner the same respect due to true men, so long as they do their jobs effectively. This seems the general view, and it is no small wonder that men abandon their families in droves, leaving their wives generally to suffer under the frequently resultant economic pressure, to go on themselves to live happy and fruitful lives. You may attempt to marginalize it as mere religion, my friend. But the truth of it is this: it is simple decency, a commodity of increasing rarity. >With respect to the relevance of Clinton's collateral testimony on Lewinsky in the Jones suit. The judge agreed that it was not essential to the case. There is no fixed rule about eliminating evidence in these cases which might have some small relevance, but whose prejudical effect is much much greater than its probitive value. There should be such a rule. Not just for the President. For everyone.< Perhaps, but this yet does not mitigate the now incontrovertible fact of Mr. Clinton's being faced with the law not merely in a civil case, but also before a Federal Grand Jury, and yet willfully and repeatedly breaking that law.