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: Machaon who wrote (34730)	2/20/1999 9:17:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>Oh. Thanks for explaining it to me. So...... you are saying that Livingston admitted to cheating on his wife after his first affair? [or second or third or…]cOh, now noble!< Whatever. Livingston's sex life is a private matter, remember? Since Livingston was never asked about his sex life in court, he never got the opportunity to lie about it in a court. Neither did he therefore have need to obstruct justice. He never lied about it in court and since he never obstructed justice concerning it, he accordingly was never charged with having lied to a court of law, etc. Since he was never charged about lying to a court, he never had occasion to continue to lie in perpetuity about it. Herein lies the great difference between Livingston and Bill Clinton. >And, then, of course, the Republican Party gave him a standing ovation. How noble of them!< Well you see, he received the ovation likely because he admitted the affairs flatly, forgoing the Clinton treatment, and even resigning in the wake of the revelation. There was nothing more one could expect of him, and so there was certainly no need to further condemn him. Unlike Clinton, Livingston in effect condemned himself. We can call him ignoble until the cows are butchered and sold, but juxtaposed to Clinton, he appears sinless. >Now that you have explained all this to me, what do you think the Republicans are going to use instead of their "Family Values" portion of their Election 2000 platform?< I do not know, and neither do I care. >What a crock. When Democrats found out about Clinton's affair they rightly condemned him.< Sure, whatever. Should I ever commit a crime I would certainly appreciate being “condemned” Democrat style. Some Democrats said a few harsh words concerning Clinton, but they almost unanimously carried their butts down to the big house to stand behind their man, all the while blaming others for adhering to principle, this, while Clinton was continually engaged in lying. Democrats everywhere told us repeatedly this was no great issue because it was “Just lying about sex.” No, my friend. Democrats “condemned” (Hah!) Clinton and then as quickly as they could told us “It was just lying about sex”, this while Clinton lied his razor back off, continuing to lie even as I type this. At least Livingston flatly told the truth once it was obvious he would be revealed. Surely all this is beneath my personal standards (I would not have had the affair in the first place), and so I do not defend Livingston. My concern is that you here imply a similarity between Livingston/Republicans and Clinton/Democrats. You err. In the Senate some Democrats actually claimed the President guilty of having lied, etc., but they voted “Not guilty”. One Democrat actually claimed the President committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors and yet he voted “Not Guilty”. While all this was happening, Clinton was continually lying. No one had to claim Livingston guilty or otherwise. Livingston did it himself. He completely admitted he had committed adultery, and though having not at all lied in court about it, resigned nevertheless. >When the Republicans find out about Livingston's affair, they give him a standing ovation. Ahhhhh, the sweet smell of "Family Values", Republican style. <g> Again, they did not give him the ovation because of the adultery (be reasonable. You know it to be true), as you here insinuate. They did it because unlike Clinton, Livingston flatly admitted the truth, spinning the thing not one jot. Surely he did it far too late according to my standards, but in the face of an adversarial pornographer and juxtaposed with a president who even after being revealed a liar continued to lie even to this day, perhaps he is indeed worthy of being applauded. One would think if Livingston was so worthy of condemnation that even the Democrats would have condemned him. What did the Democrats do? They pleaded with him not to resign. This should be at least nearly as reprehensible to you as giving him a standing ovation. You should be all out nekked in the streets about your precious Democrats doing such a thing. Ahhhh, the putrid smell of “Family Values” Democrat style.