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: Bill who wrote (8121)	10/8/1998 3:32:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Ah, another ironic use of the "have you no shame" line. Walsh though he could make a perjury case. I take his word more seriously than I could possibly take anything you say. Want to join JLA in blaming Clinton for the decline of the West too?

To: Bill who wrote (8121)	10/8/1998 3:54:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Bush Pardons 6 in Iran Affair, Aborting a Weinberger Trial; Prosecutor Assails Cover-Up' search.nytimes.com You have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have lied when you said: "and Bush lied under oath." You can't even point to an instance where Bush was PUT UNDER OATH! You're such a reasonable guy, Bill. From the story: Asserting that "no impartial person has seriously suggested that my own role in this matter is legally questionable," the President sought to position himself on the side of greater openness. Mr. Bush said he had asked Mr. Walsh to provide him with a copy of his testimony to the prosecutor, which he would make public. It seems that Mr. Bush testified before Special Prosecutor. Do you think he got to testify without taking an oath? And Walsh thought he could make a perjury case. Do you know better? Of course you do. As to the loving language, which I'd assert is considerably more moderate than your own language here, I've never claimed to be a Christian. Though I've tried to stay away from tit for tat, sometimes the personal attacks get a bit too provocative. Unlike many of the hate mongers. Those guys are just stating the facts, though, right? As for the "shame" part, well, I have a different opinion about who has no shame here.