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: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (6904)	10/3/1998 4:38:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Dwight, Im going to go on record right now and say that Im not interested in becoming personally involved with any man that wasnt at least slightly aroused by reading the Starr report. So thats it then, our affair is off. Michelle

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (6904)	10/3/1998 5:03:00 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 67261

No. Probably just the pompous moralizing he accuses others of committing. JLA

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (6904)	10/3/1998 6:09:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Daniel, while you apparently did find the squalid details of Clinton's sexual escapades in the Oval Office enjoyable and titillating reading, I did not, and never have I indicated such. I didn't find the Starr report's purple prose titillating reading. I must confess, I haven't read it, period. I read the news about it. That, and the fact that he apparently wasn't able to come up with anything else to report on out of the whole anti-Clinton industry he was at the center off, left me with little interest in the squalid details. I get enough of the squalid details reading this august forum. And lest anyone say how can I talk about any of this, without reading the relevant "facts", I was willing to concede perjury by Clinton on the matter. Even if it was as clear cut as you guys make it out to be, I wouldn't consider it cause for impeachment, considering it came out of a moribund civil suit, initiated by Starr, for political purposes, on a matter that has nothing to do with Clinton's Presidential duties. Of course, Doug has told us that the basis for the perjury claims is somewhat dubious too, but he's the lawyer, not me. You make bold presumptions of others, then pass judgement on whether your conclusions of me meet my own Christian standards. Is your conclusion that I found the Starr report's sordid details "enjoyable" based on your own arousal upon reading the Starr report? Now who's presuming something here? I presumed that you enjoyed the details of the Starr report based on your apparent pleasure in bashing Clinton on any grounds you can come up with. Or do you find you "Clinton as Caligula" comparison somehow contributed to elevating the sorry level of political dialogue our country is engaged in? It all sounded mighty darn Christian to me.