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: cool who wrote (6891)	9/24/1998 5:12:00 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

<<The news on Hyde was, if you did not pay attention---that he committed adultery five years running with a married woman, himself married ---recently casually dismissed it as a youthful indiscretion--he was 45 at the time---he broke up the marriage and family as a result--- She was already long gone from her husband, just didn't have the resources to file for a divorce. <<Newt? his ex-wife was sick with cancer in the hospital, Newt hands her the divorce papers with a provision that it she speaks, she loses alimony payments. Many other details are presented on the bi-partisian site .>> Newt and his ex had filed for a mutually wanted divorce before she was diagnosed with cancer. He brought the papers by on one of his visits. She and his daughter speak well of Newt. You ever get any cobia in the surf?

To: cool who wrote (6891)	9/25/1998 7:28:00 AM
From: Liatris Spicata	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

'cool- By your rather stringent standard's, Hyde's adultery apparently qualifies him as a "sleaze bag". That is the best sense I can get out of your answer. A five year affair is not something I care to judge- it is a long way from promiscuous sexual activity, however. Of course, you seem not to apply the same standards of propriety to a consummate sleazebag like Bill Clinton. He, who has plugged numerous low status females in casual affairs, as well as lied under oath on the matter and possibly obstructed justice, seems to escape your sense of outrage. In fact, you rush to the Sleazebag's defense. Can you at least have enough honesty to yourself to admit that you apply one set of standards to those you dislike, and another set to those who, presumably for political reasons, you like. Sir, I charge you are a rank hypocrite. Larry P.S. Despite your catty "if you did not pay attention", I noted a couple of posts ago to you that I was aware of Hyde's adultery. So climb off your stupid high horse!