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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (30477)	1/28/1999 10:41:00 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<Nothing much has been proven about the Paula Jones story. If you accept the neologic that either Jones or Clinton must be telling the absolute truth, you're never going to prove anything anyway, because your logic is cracked.>> How about this logic. Many Does have accused clinton. He has a habit of lying until millions are spent on irrefutable evidence. Then he becomes with Swaggartesque sincerity, remorseful. He lies all the time. You know that. You don't know that Jones is a liar. If you want to say it is about sex. Well...here we are. Logically, with tons of evidence that he's a liar you would say there is no logic to the idea that he's likely to be lying this time in the face of the evidence that he is? Even if you hold the opinion that Jones is an opportunist, that isn't synonymous with liar.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (30477)	1/28/1999 10:46:00 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Those talking points from the WH propaganda apparatus are really handy, aren't they Danny boy? JLA

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (30477)	1/28/1999 12:19:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

I have tried to be civil in dealing with you, even after the "shove it " comment, but you are making it difficult. 1. Either it happened or it didn't--- the law of non- contradiction, which is the first rule of logic. Both could be lying in other resects, but either it happened or it didn't. 2. The point of "absent a definitive adjudication, we are free to surmise either way " is to concede that you have as much right to disbelieve Paula as I do to believe her, since the question is undecidable under the circumstances. But it is no more certain that the story was manufactured, and I have a right to believe her. 3. None of your insinuations definitively rebut my version, they merely cast sufficient doubt as to keep your version alive. Since I have already said that my principal contention was that she deserved her day in court, I don't see that I am being slippery. 4. I didn't say that Paula's sincerity was "obvious". She could be a good actress. I said that she appeared sincere to me. 5. My previous replies are a sufficient answer to your concluding rant. By the way, ever since the '92 primaries, when he got caught out in prevarication after prevarication, to a degree that astonished even the mainstream press core, Clinton has been branded an egregious liar. Coupled with his aura of fake sincerity, he is considered stomach turning by many. And Monica does at least demonstrate that the general reputation that he has for womanizing is warranted. It is against that background that I find these other women more credible than him.