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: Krowbar who wrote (27508)	1/1/1999 2:39:00 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Del, if Clinton had had the guts, savoir faire, machismo, what-have-you, to have simply said that his sex life was nobody's business but his own, none of this would have happened. He wanted to have his cake and eat it too, to have Monica and get away with it, no one can blame him for that, but to also represent himself as above reproach, without reproach, beyond reproach, morally superior, morally blameless, sinless, stainless. This is, purely and simply, hubris. People who f*** around should simply keep quiet and lay low, knowwhatimean?

To: Krowbar who wrote (27508)	1/1/1999 12:49:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

No Del- you have it wrong- Clinton was not asked to swear he had never done ANYTHING morally wrong. Our president was asked some very SPECIFIC questions, in a sexual HARASSMENT case, in response to which he lied. Your example is not apt, is designed to obscure the issue, and is an attempt to show how unfairly Clinton was treated by exaggerating the issue. Now you can reasonably argue that there should not BE harassment cases, you can argue that the law should be changed regarding perjury in embarrassing cases (although I would think that would be a bad idea- an embarrassment exception seems like a crack defendants could drive a tank through- but people everywhere seem to be arguing that this sort of exception is reasonable. But to be meaningful it would have to be codified or case law- as yet it is neither.) You can argue that the President should not have been sued while still in office and thus the Supreme Court erred in allowing the case to go forward- I personally think this argument has merit. But NONE of this excuses the President from what he did- lying under oath and egregiously lying to his staff, the country, and doing it over and over again- and for his character assassination of Monica Lewinsky (remember she was a deranged nympho- making things up, living in a fantasy world?). So the question is- does a President get to keep his job when ANYONE else in this position would be fired- both for sexual conduct in the workplace and for perjury? The holier than thou Republicans fessed up immediately to infidelities- and Livingston (who did NOT even lie under oath) resigned not only the speakership but will resign his seat. Now if you want someone to be held to the same standard I suggest the President be held to Bob Livingston's.