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: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (34780)	2/21/1999 8:20:00 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Respond to of 67261

>It still doesn't pass the test even out now; people just don't go for 20 year old allegations that have no proof.< The left fell all over their pointy shoes for Anita Hill's allegations, though they had not a shred of proof. So let us not hear any more from you on "integrity" and "separate standards" and this sort of hogwash. The fact is, there is a heck of a lot more on Clinton to support his being capable of sexual misdeeds than there was on Clarence Thomas. What was that I heard from the left? Silence. Integrity indeed. Separate standards indeed.

To: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (34780)	2/21/1999 8:36:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

people just don't go for 20 year old allegations that have no proof. First off, there was a first-hand witness. That alone is enough to convict. It is just a matter of convincing the jury. The defense could try to claim that Juanita bit her own lips and tore her own panty-hose, but I doubt that would be very feasible. Second of all, WHAT ABOUT PACKWOOD? There was a covey of feminists lining up to denounce Bob Packwood with 20 year-old allegations. Funny how I don't remember any liberals having any problem with that then. But of course, we all know that if a Lib is going after a conservative, then everything is okay! Any and everything is valid evidence, and damning evidence at that. You guys (and liberal feminist women) need to get a clue, because your credibility is going, going, gone.

To: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (34780)	2/22/1999 12:27:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 67261

Take it up with the Post.

To: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (34780)	2/22/1999 2:14:00 AM
From: JBL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

< It still doesn't pass the test even out now; people just don't go for 20 year old allegations that have no proof. Nobody can even place Clinton at the place!!!!!!! You folks will believe anything as long as it is bad about him. You have no integrity.> You are both comical and ridiculous Jonathan. The Washington Post deemed Broaddrick's credible enough to run her story on their front page. Do they have no integrity ? What is your logic for villifying people who believe Clinton did in fact rape this woman, while at the same time exempting yourself from the same kind of villification for accusing her of being a manipulator and a liar ? It all goes to the issue of credibility of the 2 parties doesn't it ? Well, on this issue of credibility, I find Broadrick's story much more credible than Kendall's denial. (Nurse being witness to injury and torn clothes, previous encounter between Clinton and Broadricks, pattern of lying by Clinton, no money sought for story, absence of any facts in Kendall's denial.) And I suggest to you that most people, if truly impartial and informed of all the facts, would find Broadrick's version more credible than Kendal's denial. You can chose to disagree with this judgment, but you certainly have no right to act like a pig being slaughtered if people do not agree with you. I say let's hear Clinton's version to put the issue to rest. The charges are too important to be shoved under a rug. Until Clinton gives us his version, you had better get used to hearing that Broaddrick story over and over, and debating it on the facts given to us. So far, unfortunately for you, we only have Broaddrick / witnesses version of events, and this President's history.