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: dougjn who wrote (7088)	9/26/1998 11:14:00 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Hi dougjn; So the ends justifies the means again, eh? As in, perhaps some values, such as belief in civil rights for all people, and the advance in that that Kennedy and Johnson ere larely responsible for, are a whole lot more important that how successful they were in keeping their zippers up in the White House. Once again, this is not about sex, it is about perjury and obstruction of justice, etc. The link I posted above is enough to convince anyone that these sorts of things are prosecuted by the US Dept. of Justice when they occur. Here it is again: usdoj.gov The facts in the above case are so similar to Clinton's that it amazes me. Click on the link, everybody, it is only a one page press release, and it is on the USDOJ web site. If one wishes to support Clinton as a great guy, that is something that belongs at the sentencing, not at the time at which the decision to indict or prosecute (or impeach) occurs. The scales of justice are not balanced by good works. Perhaps the scales of heaven weigh men's souls, but the scales of justice of the United States do not. If the scales of justice were balanced with good deeds, then the ends would justify the means, but they are not so balanced. Otherwise, we could decide that a great athlete, for example, should not be punished for his little crimes, which might be understandable to some. I personally have had it suggested to me that I lie in court for my own advantage. I did not hesitate to respond that that was not a good idea for a whole bunch of reasons. The POTUS is a lawyer, he is a Rhodes scholar, he is a genius, he has the best legal advice anyone could want. But he lied under oath. Even Jimmy Carter says so. Carter is a man of honor, and simplicity. God, I wish he would run again, though he didn't know squat about how the economy works. (At least he brought in Volcker.) But the other example of "the ends justifying the means" is your posting racist suggestions about blacks in a public forum. I've known racists, over the years, and I don't like to see their statements go unchallenged. Maybe you should consider a less odious "means" of making a point. I don't like racist jokes, either, now that I think about it, though the "ends" is only humor. Please accept my profound apologies for imagining that your post was serious. It is true that I didn't understand your irony, and so it cried to me for some sort of response. -- Carl