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: Neocon who wrote (33490)	2/11/1999 2:39:00 AM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Just thought I'd post this here for the heck of it. Message 7769993 Ok. Thanks for acknowledging that polls do show that at least 70% of Americans believe the President is guilty of Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. <<You can not have a lie with out a subject or object to lie about. In Wateregate the lies and perjury centered around a bungled burglary. The burglary was illegal. Getting a Blow Job is not.>> In Monicagate, actually I like to think Jonesgate, the subject was false testimony in a civil case. The testimony was illegal. Then later, the President goes before a Grand Jury and claims his testimony was "true." Most Americans see through this. At the level you try to delineate, there really is no difference. These realities will not be forgotten. Clinton will be remembered not just as some unfairly hounded bloke who just wanted a blow job, but also as a womanizing perjuring liar as I've already described it here- which is backed up by overwhelming poll results. History will represent both sides clearly. School children will giggle, but they won't simply think of him as wrongfully hounded- not by a long shot. Just as the people now largely believe, historians will say that Clinton certainly committed Perjury and Obstruction of Justice but got off(no pun intended-hehehe). They'll go through the same arguments over whether it was impeachable and they'll disagree with each other. But then as now, it will be said BY MOST BY FAR that he was certainly guilty of the crimes charged against him. As our exchange bears some witness, Democrats haven't quite absorbed the reality of this. Mainstream America is far more realistic than is partisan core party opinion. <<The democrats didn't have as much of a dislike for Bush as the conservatives have toward Clinton. For the conservatives to now say that "well they would have done it to us" is juvenile at best.>> The problem with this is that you don't yet realize how little "hate" is at the bottom of this. Clinton is a simple man who has created his own reality. The 84%, or 70% if you wish, who believe he is guilty of Perjury and Obstruction are not Clinton haters- most of them want him to stay in office. They see the truth. They disaprove of Republicans in this matter- they have not been duped- they know guilt when they see it. It is not unreasonable for the law to demand justice from a President who has now been shown to lie about so many women. There was an adultery charge against Bush back when he was President. It was a rumor. Someone had said someone else had told them of it. That scrap of a story hit all the networks. Network Anchors spoke in ominous tones while holding off judgement(LOL- amazing how quick to jump they were and how ominous and serious they did sound) Within 48 hours it was determined it was just a story falsely told and taken for true by the hearer, a story with no foundation what-so ever. Yet this bit did hit the airways immediately! What's juvenile is the notion that Democrats wouldn't attack Bush and hound him out of office for lying against a womans case in court. Look what they tried to do to Clarence Thomas! Also juvenile is the notion that Republicans shouldn't try to bring Clinton to justice over sex when it IS after all, ALSO ABOUT PERJURY AGAINST A CITIZEN IN COURT. Clinton has indeed been very bad to women in his life- except when they appreciated the sex, of course. <<The Puala Jones case was settled out of court for political reasons. The case was originally dismissed because Paula Jones could not show damages. Whether Clinton lied under oath would not have affected the decision of the Judge. The judge almost went as far as to say Jones damage claims were false. >> The political reasons were that the case was going to go forward. Evidence from officers who often took him women would have been heard. The speculation that JOnes could identify his "bent crank" if Clinton could get a hard-on in chambers for the judge would be laughed about. In this he said/she said case, his reputation had been tarnished by two women who proved the President lied about his activities with them, namely Flowers with her tapes and Lewinsky with her dress. Many other believable women(and likely honest, I've got to believe, don't you?) would have been trotted in. The President had a "hisory", a rap sheet. These were the political reasons for the settlement. His case was actually weak in many ways and his lawyers knew it. It's not good for a man in a he said/she said to have "priors" on record. I repeat, a Federal Appeals Court has ruled last fall that Clintons withheld evidence may have materially affected the Jones Dismissal. Without the Dress and the Presidential admissions, there would have been no appeal and no settlement. This much will also be clear and noted by Historians. Republican hatred truly has a small role in these events. The Jones witnesses, officers and friends and co-workers, only would have related the true events they were party too. Clinton has made his own reality. It's truly his doing above all. Historians will indeed note this well, among all the rest your side has to say. ...and in the future- as polls show now- the vast majority will believe the man was guilty of crimes. He is- JMHO...but among a majority this time.

To: Neocon who wrote (33490)	2/11/1999 8:51:00 AM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 67261

Three chances of that (misattribution stopping) happening: fat, slim and NONE. hahahaha JLA

To: Neocon who wrote (33490)	2/11/1999 9:51:00 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Neocon, you must have uncommon patience in light of your attempts to reason with that numbskull. Can I hire you to manage my daughter's Valentine's Day party?

To: Neocon who wrote (33490)	2/11/1999 10:36:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Lapse into surliness? What would you call this? In response to my post: Right, cody. I often bring up Singapore, but from a different angle. Lee Kuan Yew's government has a long history of suing political opponents into bankruptcy under the little city state's quaint libel laws. That particular form of politics seems similar enough to the Jones saga, and about as appealing on the "truth and justice" front. I'm sure the "truth and justice" squad here would love to have libel laws like that here, as long as they were suitably aimed the correct side of the political aisle. You replied, oh so politely needless to say: Out of politeness, I have ignored your references to Singapore, since they are so ludicrous, I was embarrassed for you, . . . Quite polite and civil of you to point out how ludicrous the above post was. You were embarrassed for me. How thoughtful of you. In response to your "ludicrous" post, I brought up the Amnesty International report on the last political libel trial in Singapore. Just the last one, it's an ongoing phenomena, and it was the first thing that came up on a web search. You replied with blather about how the defendant "could have settled anytime", as if that was what the government had in mind when they sued him. But I was ignoring the thrust of your posts, the thrust being presumably that anything not directly addressing Clinton's personal shortcomings in this forum is off topic. As for the "type 3 Clinton hatred", it's not my diagnosis. You can hate (excuse me, despise) Clinton for whatever reasons you want. The stupid 2/3 just wants to move on, whatever they think of Clinton. If you want to argue about that at the political level, you might take it up with James Bowers, as in Message 7754242 . James is a libertarian, and we've often argued about the economic side of the equation on another quasi-legal matter. But I certainly agree with libertarians on civil liberties and privacy issues, and I admire their philosophical consistency. They used to have an interesting position on defense spending too, though I don't know what the current line is. I don't have enough faith in markets to go whole hog into that camp, I'd like software that sucks less and the market doesn't seem to be delivering it. But in terms of current American politics, I thing the libertarians are much more in tune with "conservative" values, as held by the broader population, than the moral reformationists are, and if I had to pick a political philosophy among current alternatives, that's where I'd go. The Democrats really don't have much of a philosophy, of course, I never claimed they did. They've always been all over the place. Still, all over the place beats the particular place the moral reformationists want to lead us to. I'd prefer to have the option of voting for Orwell's political philosophy, but that's not really an alternative in our two party system.