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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: j g cordes who wrote (29586)	1/24/1999 5:32:00 PM
From: Patricia Trinchero	Respond to of 67261

This whole process has not been legal from the start. It is political. In a regular court of law, 95% of all the evidence would be thrown out ( by the admission of Asa Hutchinson ). Our Pres. has not been found guilty of any crimes. I say he should be tried first and if convicted.....then go through impeachment process.All we have is a bunch of self-righteous hypocrits spewing forth circumstantial allegations that they contrived themselves. The grand jury didn't even indict Clinton! The Republicans in the judicial committee indicted him. This is outrageous!! The political component to this process is what makes it poisonous! The Pres.'s rights have been violated in every way they could be violated.

To: j g cordes who wrote (29586)	1/24/1999 6:08:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

>"Weakened" does not and never has meant the same as "abuse".< Error. You falsely equate circumstances that have nothing to do with one another. In the case of circumstances where motives and actions do not constitute a breach in some contract or moral code (i.e. neutral circumstances), the word “weakened” certainly does not necessarily mean “abuse”. On the other hand in cases where contracts or moral codes are breached, such as in the case where marital trust has been “weakened” as the result of infidelity, the word “weakened” logically must mean the same as “abuse”. In the case of infidelity the trust of one spouse has been “weakened” by the other, and so that trust has been “abused” or “violated”. Where it by definition should be a thing of strength, the abusive spouse has altered its constitution such that it is not as strong as it was before. This is what Clinton has done to public trust, as even Byrd admits. Clinton was under several legal contracts as well as a moral code requiring him to tell the truth. He broke those contracts and codes, thereby weakening the trust of those with which he had entered them. He has therefore “weakened” public trust, and this by logical necessity means he has “abused” or “violated” it. >One can weaken by running too far, it doesn't mean the race was abusive.< No doubt you now can see the fallacy of your argument. The word “weaken” here derives its neutrality simply because the circumstance itself (the mere circumstance of a race) is neutral. >Your logic and language skills need polish.< Yeah sure. In your post you flagrantly confuse fallacy with sound reason, and then think yourself qualified to criticize your superiors. (liberals, you gotta laugh at ‘em). You should really use initials here or some anonymous name like DIPY. >Did you really post this filth on SI?< No, a space alien did it (dear me. Is this guy a dit?). Indeed yes I posted it. Of course in response to filth. As they say, filth for filth. (Ah. Dinner bell.) I'm tired of this. Cya.