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 : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (2235)	11/21/1998 12:12:00 PM
From: Ahda	Respond to of 81019

Maybe the law should be changed that you can lie under oath about sex. This is the whole problem. With consent no law should govern it can't it is an impossible law as the heart governs monogamy and the other end well primates are primates. We have inflation Jim . In my opinion the only thing that is holding it down is made in china or asia and the cost of oil. Groceries are more costly tax write off is causing property to hold plus low interest Y2k just might add to bottom re replacments and compliance which will add to inflation. Guree Tom is out at the mall saying shoppers go.

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (2235)	11/21/1998 1:30:00 PM
From: Giraffe	Respond to of 81019

>>Maybe the law should be changed that you can lie under oath about sex. << Actually if you're asked a question under oath about some private, potentially embarrassing, personal matter that is not relevant to the case in question the legal precedent is quite clear . In such a scenario it is NOT considered perjury (thank God) if you tell an untruth to maintain your privacy and dignity. The question then obviously is whether Lewinsky was relevant to Paula Jones - a point that could be endlessly debated, although I believe that the judge in the Jones case had ruled that it wasn't.

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (2235)	11/21/1998 1:56:00 PM
From: sea_urchin	Respond to of 81019

Jim : I feel you have missed the point I was trying to make which is that this case should never have seen the light of day, let alone be so protracted that everyone is sick of it. I'll make another point. The President has bodyguards because the nation considers his life is worth protecting. After all, warts and all, he IS the President of the nation and not just his supporters. Therefore he should be protected against attacks made on his integrity irrespective of whether he is a liar, or not . In addition, even though he may be a disreputable scoundrel (which he well could be), since he was elected in a fair election the whole nation should stand behind him --- for better or for worse. Remember, Bill Clinton has been the best candidate for President the US electorate could find --- in two elections! So, were the American people wrong?! Is democracy a failure?! Is the right to choose a choice about nothing?! What I'm actually saying is that the President of the US should be beyond the law (for certain transgressions). This, I suppose, is tantamount to heresy. But, the law offers no solution to the problem, anyway. Therefore, the matter should not have been dealt with in a legal, adversarial way. It is not a divorce case. In addition, there are no suitable penalties, including impeachment. In fact, there are no penalties. What has happened is simply something the US will have to live with and get over as best it can. That's why I said it should never have been brought to public attention, in the first place. Whatever Ken Starr was about is one thing, but what has now transpired is certainly not in the nation's best interests.