SI
SI
discoversearch

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: pezz who wrote (8224)10/14/1998 12:51:00 PM
From: Rick Slemmer  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 13994
 
What are laws for? Shall we discard them whenever our emotions move us? If so which laws do we discard and under what circumstances? Who makes these decision? I'm afraid what you prescribe is a prescription for anarchy

Thanks for making the point. Perjury is a felony, whether about tax evasion, an illicit affair, or jaywalking.

RS



To: pezz who wrote (8224)10/14/1998 1:09:00 PM
From: Don Pueblo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 13994
 
Assume you are an employer an employee has an affair ,lies about it do you fire him/her on the grounds that you can never trust that person again? This is simply a concept of convenience for anti Clinton people.

Your arguments, including this one, are seriously flawed. Clinton is guilty. It's the pro-Clinton people that are divided on this matter. If you want to draw an analogy, make it at least similar. For example: the CEO of a publicly traded company has an affair with a new employee. He publicly denies it to the shareholders, then 7 months later, he is caught having committed perjury in a court of law. He has broken a multitude of laws. He is guilty. He is convicted of several felonies. He goes to jail.

You are a shareholder. Who cares if you trust him or not. The question is: Is he fit to run the company from his jail cell? Yes or no?



To: pezz who wrote (8224)10/14/1998 8:47:00 PM
From: greenspirit  Read Replies (5) | Respond to of 13994
 
pezz, let me try and explain where I believe are differences lie. So from what I gather, you feel that unless someone does something illegal he should not be impeached. If this is true, then I guess you feel that Nixon should never have been threatened impeachment? After all it was never proved that he did anything illegal. He simply lied, and lost the trust and faith of the people. Eventually it may have been proven that he was personally involved in illegalities, but I doubt it. We could have easily had a protracted political battle, based on empirical evidence of legal rights for quite some time. He could have argued the use of what "is" meant and a whole bunch of other things. He was forced to resign because the American people felt he had broken faith with our moral principles and made false and misleading statements. That was enough. His principles were out of alignment with the peoples.

Are you suggesting that the President going on national television and looking straight at the American people and lying is the same as Joe Q citizen lying to his family? I believe there is a higher responsibility when you hold the highest office in the land to tell the truth. Especially in a court of law. No wonder we have so many cynical people. Besides, I can guarantee you that if anyone in the military had been carrying on with an intern in the work-space he would have been booted out in an instant without a second thought. And probably the same would happen to any government employee.

Do you believe we should have two standards, one for your apparent hero Bill Clinton and another for the rest of America?? This is supposed to be America not some autocracy from across the Atlantic. What's right and just for the people, is right and just for our elected officials.

It still amazes me that it took 40 years until the Republicans came to power in the house, to pass a simple law which said we must abide by the same laws as we force the people to.

I guess Tip O socialist neil and his good buddy Dan Rostenkowski just never got around to that. Surprise, surprise coming from the anoited ones.

The illogical rationalizations coming from the Clinton spinmeisters are starting to sound like the "Union of Socialist Soviet Republic" nightly news in the early 80's. :-)

Michael