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: jbn3 who wrote (3478)	9/17/1998 9:48:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>Have you ever worked for a corporation? Made a sales pitch? If so, did you lay out ALL the facts to the prospective customer?< I do not have time to address the entire post, but I will tell you this: making a sales pitch is quite different than testifying before a court of law. >Emphasize and make certain the customer was at least as fully aware of the negatives and shortcomings of your product or deal as he was of the positive aspects? If you didn't, isn't that also a form of falsehood?< I guess I can say I have made hundreds of sales pitches, and I cannot recall lying in any of them. This is not to say I have not lied at all, however, but that the things I have said about a "product" I really believed. Of course there were facts that I did not tell the consumer, but not to harm him. I didn't mention them because I thought them irrelevant. Often times, I would even forget to tell the consumer good things about the product. I didn't lie, and I didn't withhold information with malicious intent. Clinton did lie and he did not lie in an average way. He lied and lied, and slipped and dashed, and wagged his finger and squirmed, and continues to tell us things the likes of which would be insulting to the intelligence of a nitwit, this, all to avoid telling the simple truth. I have never ever done this-not ever. How it is you are not insulted by the man, is simply beyond me.

To: jbn3 who wrote (3478)	9/17/1998 10:53:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

re: lying at work I want to throw in my two cents worth here - I have been in the corporate world a long time, and have never lied through omission or commission regarding a work matter. I pride myself on my integrity, and would quit before I would do the things you were describing. As a matter of fact, I have, and under circumstances that left me in very dire financial straits. I do not think I am better than anyone else - I think far more people than you realize are honest. We all make mistakes an have moments of weakness, but we don't make a policy of lying on a regular basis to achieve our goals. The ends do not justify the means. <<What Clinton did was stupid. But it was a relatively trivial sin, affecting only him, Monica, his immediate family, and his God>> You forgot Paula Jones. You also forgot the American people, to whom he lied directly last January. Regardless of how he found himself there, Clinton had the opportunity to come clean, and chose to make his "crime" worse by increasing his sphere of "lie-ees" from just the people involved in the original court case, to the whole world.

To: jbn3 who wrote (3478)	9/17/1998 11:20:00 PM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

jbn3, "Ken Starr, with the help of our press, has done what Stalin, Khruschew, Gromyko, Brezhnev, Tito and Mao never succeeded in doing--making the United States of America a circus." You bring up an interesting set of possibilities - from that we may rationally conclude that President Clinton: 1) Was so blatantly ignorant of the possible consequences of his sexual misdeeds that he is mentally incompetent to appropriately defend this nation from enemies without as well as within; and/or, 2) Was so besotted with his own libidinous interests that the repute of the office of the President and this great nation were of only secondary importance to the gratification he received, in which case he is hopelessly morally bankrupt; and/or, 3) He somehow believes he cannot be caught and therefore, can exercise his Presidential authority to prevent having consequences visited upon him for his supposed mistake, thus, in this case, he is a dangerous megalomaniac who positions himself above the legal system. Any of the above do not inspire me with confidence in his ability to "protect and defend" the image of these United States. I invite your response. Mr. K.