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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: trouthead who wrote (9728)	12/23/1998 6:04:00 PM
From: Liatris Spicata	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

Junior- You are quite tiresome. <<As I said I think he should stand trial for it, but not on my time. >> Just perhaps the standards for convicting in criminal court and remaining president of the USA need not be identical. And just because the con-artist could con yet another group of 12 chums who didn't have the smarts to get out of jury duty does not necessarily mean he should remain as President. The issue at hand is not whether Sleazebag Bill is guilty in criminal court- it's whether or not , given his actions, he should remain as President of the USA. <<Where is the proof of all these other lies he's told? If there was any starr and the house would surely have been discussing wouldn't they? >> No. Starr's charter, as I recall, only extended to Clinton's activities while in the Oval Office. Try again, Jr. <<Making unsubstantiated claims is liable (sic) and you can end up in court for that.>> Guess you don't know much about libel laws as applied to "public persons", do you now? Not that lack of knowledge prevents you from spouting off your drivel. <<"no vital national security issue at stake" My point exactly.>> I realize my point taxed your puny intellectual powers, but by taking it out of context you've succeeded in distorting its meaning. Oh well, honesty is obviously not the stock in trade of people of your ilk. <<As for nixon, go read the history. You are showing yourself to be an ignorant moron.>> Not that you show yourself capable of making any point about Nixon- or anything else for that matter. But, by resorting to name calling without making the laborious effort to justify your claim, you do manage to clearly demonstrate that you are a jerk. Larry