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: Achilles who wrote (7219)	10/5/1998 9:58:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 67261

surely if you participate in a discussion in which you invoke moral views and judgements, it is appropriate for you to be asked to explain how they are framed and whether you manage to live up to them yourself. Ok. My views on the following are framed by common sense, common decency, respect for others, and the golden rule, which is treat everyone as I expect to be treated. 1) I judge that it is highly improper for the President of the US, or any boss, to be engaging in sexual relations with an underling employee, most particularly those acts should never take place literally in the workplace. If anyone has sex at work, they should never get caught. I don't care if they are husband and wife or what have you. You get caught, that's wrong. If you're the boss and the sex partner is your subordinate employee, a sexual relationship is improper no matter where the acts are done: Most if not all private companies recognise this, and have rules against it. It brings conflicts of interest, and impartial decision making becomes impossible. For the record, I have never so much as made a pass at anyone in a junior position to me. 2) I judge that nobody should ever lie under oath, particularly about having sex with a subordinate employee in the workplace. For the record, I have never lied under oath. I refuse to discuss in this forum my religious beliefs, and how they affect the above views, mainly because Daniel simply wants to attack my methods of debate as being "un-Christian".