SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (45998)5/5/1999 5:19:00 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 67261
 
8.) 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 respects, 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.
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.