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 (6193)	9/17/1998 2:26:00 PM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 13994

Mr. Hyde is the most respected and admired lying hypocrite in the house - by both parties.

To: Doughboy who wrote (6193)	9/17/1998 2:49:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

<<because Hyde is a lying hypocrite.>> When did Hyde lie (by commission, not omission), and in what way is he a hypocrite? We've been over this ground before, and saying it over and over doesn't make it true. As far as I can tell, when Hyde was asked about the affair, he admitted to it. Clinton is not being judged on his infidelity, but on his lying under oath and abuse of power. If you are saying that Hyde espouses "family values" even though he committed adultery in his past - I ask you this - how do you make up for that kind of mistake, to the point where you are once again allowed to push for truth, justice and the American way? If Hyde repented of his action 30 years ago, has sinned no more, and is trying to lead a good life, isn't he entitled to tell people that the good life is the right way to live, and that adultery and loose morals are bad?

To: Doughboy who wrote (6193)	9/17/1998 2:56:00 PM
From: Jim S	Respond to of 13994

Well, Doughboy, I really don't know enough about Hyde to defend or condemn him. Seems to me, though, that I have heard from a number of sources that he is well-respected in congress by both sides, and even the press has very few negative comments about him. While you may want to make a point (though what it might be escapes me) by removing him from this debacle, it might be well to consider who would replace him. Can you imagine a Republican with the mentality of the Democrat Conyers taking over the chair? I shudder to think of the acrimony and vileness that would cause. You might want to reconsider your position until you are sure that the "devil you don't know" would be better than the "devil you know." Think it through, my friend. jim