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 (6752)	9/23/1998 7:54:00 AM
From: Liatris Spicata	Respond to of 13994

No, no, Dwight- You are missing the point. How could you be so obtuse? It's obvious that the whole misunderstanding revolves about the meaning of the word "what"! One wonders if foreign leaders worry about Sleazebag Bill's vocabulary when they talk with him! Seriously, I also thought noteworthy Jimmy Carter's statement that he thought SB was "untruthful" in his deposition. I wonder if the idiot on this thread who claimed Clinton was victim of a "conspiracy" will now add President Carter to the list of co-conspirators?? (was it jg cordes who said that?- nah, he'd be too sophisticated for such transparent bilge). In any case, today's WSJ goes where the Starr report dared not tread (apologies to those fascinated by pornography- but you can't get no satisfaction here!) The venerable rag printed a commentary by one George L. Priest in which he had the effrontery to speculate on Sleazebag Bill's motives (Ann Corrigan- phone home). They note the widely different job possibilities offered to two of the Sleazebag's former female employees- one who said "Yes" (Monica), and one who just said "No" (Paula). It's amazing how much better were the former's prospects, despite poor job performance ratings! I for one find it quite disgusting that many of the cretins defending the Sleazebag would call for the head, or some part of the anatomy, of a corporate CEO who behaved in a manner similar to the current occupant of the Oval Office. -------------------------------------------------------------------- In the Jones case, Mr. Clinton was sued for inviting a young government subordinate whom he hardly knew to meet him in a private room, where he encouraged her to perform oral sex on him, and asked her to keep quiet about it as she was leaving. The only real difference is that Ms. Lewinsky accepted the proposition; Ms. Jones refused. Ms. Lewinsky is not simply another woman with whom Mr. Clinton had consensual sex--and thus irrelevant to Ms. Jones's sex harassment charge, as Mr. Clinton contends. Instead she is the perfect witness for Ms. Jones. Her testimony not only confirms the pattern and practice of Mr. Clinton's behavior, but also demonstrates unequivocally the contrasting employment prospects of complying with rather than rejecting his sexual requests. According to the Starr report, Mr. Clinton's efforts to find Ms. Lewinsky a job intensified as discovery in the Jones case accelerated. During the summer of 1997, the president inquired about government jobs for her, leading to an offer at the United Nations that she declined.

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (6752)	9/23/1998 8:44:00 AM
From: Tommaso	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

I think any reasonable person ought to be able to accept Jimmy Carter's views; thanks for posting them. Carter was held up to the public by the media, especially by (well-meaning) Walter Cronkite, as ineffectual and fumbling when those hostages were being held in Iran. Also, congress was hostile to him as a newcomer from a Southern governor's mansion, and would not cooperate with some of his good ideas. I was especially pleased that Carter added something about the cruise-bomb attack on the factory in Khartoum. Although the attack was so accurate and timed so well that only one person was killed, the likelihood is that it was in fact a place where medicines were produced. All sorts of chemicals can serve as the "basis of chemical weapons." For example, the first chemical weapon used was chlorine. So bomb a clorox factory?