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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (27478)	12/31/1998 2:47:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

If any of those Republicans lied under oath about it they deserve to be thrown out on their collective asses.

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (27478)	12/31/1998 4:30:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Well, Dipy, welcome to the Feelings thread. Now that I have said that, I am going to disagree with you. I am not sure if I should even bother, since you seem to agree that Clinton operative Larry Flynt has a valid role to play in this unfolding drama. Hmmm, Larry Flynt, user, abuser and objectifier of women as plain old meat. Didn't he have a cover where a woman was actually being pushed through a meat grinder and made into hamburger? Good guy or something! You seem to miss the point of the entire proceeding. I am not surprised, because Clinton' spinmeisters are very good at what they do, but let me try to explain it for you anyway. I am using my own thoughts here for the most part, but need to credit a letter to the editor to the San Francisco Examiner dated December 28, 1998 by Frank J. Racioppo Jr. of Moraga, California, as well, because his argument is so succinct. The underlying issue is not about private morality at all. Clinton uses these buzz words because his pollsters discovered that most of the (stupid and unengaged) American public looked up for about two seconds, heard them, said "Oh, private sex, no big problem" and went back to drinking that sixpack or Christmas shopping or whatever passes the time for people who do not think critically, show much interest, or know anything about the law. However, the basis of the argument is really about perjury. Clinton lied under oath to deny Paula Jones her civil rights in the sexual harassment case. He used a false affidavit from Monica Lewinsky, among other things, to try to fix a court case in which he was a defendant. He denied Jones the opportunity to establish relevant facts, especially that he had a pattern of predatory sexual behavior in the workplace with subordinates. This is standard evidentiary practice in sexual harassment cases and was permitted by the presiding judge. He continued his patter of obstructing justice by lying under oath to a grand jury, after being warned by most of the nation's political leaders of both parties and most newspaper editorial boards as well, that this would be a very serious error. He influenced other government employees to lie, and repeatedly lied directly to the American people. He committed these crimes, and destroyed much of the public faith in him, while acting as the chief law enforcement officer of the land. During the Congressional impeachment hearings, other citizens who lied about sex and were convicted of perjury were brought forth. Why is it that Clinton, who should be setting the highest example of legal and ethical conduct, is somehow above all this? Did Henry Hyde or Bob Livingston or any of the other high governmental officials that Larry Flynt investigated do any of these things? No! They had relationships outside of their marriages. They did not lie about them under oath, or obstruct justice. And Clinton would not be in any trouble now if he had limited his extramarital affairs to private times and places, or attempted a cover-up. My goodness, he had sex with an intern at work, repeatedly. He used her badly, including having her give him blow jobs while he talked to Congressmen on the phone about governmental issues. If that is not in itself evidence of a degree of recklessness and bad judgment that is inappropriate for a president who already believes that the right wing is out to get him, I don't know what else to say here, except that it is very interesting to me that he didn't call Larry Flynt and the other attack dogs off. Why should he? They are all equally despicable, really, pure slime.