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: TigerPaw who wrote (35937)	2/26/1999 12:18:00 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

>But you can, or at least I do.< Merely because you do does not mean you can do it with integrity. You do it merely because of expediency, and I find this not very impressive at all. >Clinton was accussed of misdeeds in an Arkansas land Deal. Nothing came of it,because nothing happended beyond a couple trying to make the best of the so called Reagan economic revival. The rest of it has been simply accusations by political enemies.< This is mere faith-supporting propaganda. The accusations were not unfounded. Indeed, as a result of the investigation very many people have been indicted and have served time. Merely because nothing came of it directly regarding Clinton does not mean Clinton was innocent. He may well have simply lied very well, a thing which is a distinct possibility, given his track record in this arena. To call his accusations “unfounded” merely betrays your left bias. It is a left-leaning subjective determination. On the other hand, the facts show us that there were indeed criminal dealings surrounding Whitewater, and since Clinton was involved, he was suspect. Very reasonable. >It finally culminated in Ken Starr illegally trying to frame the President in a perjury trap for an incident, however titilating, was not in the remotestest scense illegal. Open your mind and you shall see.< Very well. You have made several claims here that I challenge you to support with facts. Lay aside all your left-sided propaganda, and support your claims with facts. You have here claimed the actions of Starr “illegal”. You have also claimed Starr tried to “frame the President”. You have also claimed the issue Starr brought in contention was not “in the remotest sense illegal.” I claim each of these claims of yours are a mere leftward subjective determinations with no basis in hard fact. Since you first made the claims, the onus now rests upon you to support them. My mind is open. I encourage you now to stick to the above three claims, your claims. Please be honest. Prove your claims or be revealed as nothing but a propagandist. (I go to bed. I will expect to read your defense in the morning)