Re: Clinton's sexual adventures...

Technotranscendence (
Wed, 28 Jan 1998 14:39:02 -0500 (EST)

At 02:21 PM 1/28/98, Prof. Gomes <> wrote:
>>2. His lying is distasteful. -- Unhealthy problem.
>Some say United States society is an example of freedom. We know it is NOT
>true ! Although there are some persons with real free and evoluted ideas...
>And Clinton knows that !
>A simple affair with a "disloyal"chick could be used
>by his oppositors to lead the low-minded "oaks", pseudo-moralists, against
>It isw also true that the moralists are not the majority... but the
>unconscious undecideds (or vacillatings) are...and these "go with the
>wind"... who blows stronger ????
>What would YOU have done in his place ???

I would not have cheated on my spouse or led on someone who
I should not take advantage of or lied about it or be a hypocrite
(e.g., Clinton supports all manner of laws which restrict sexual
contact between coworkers, yet it seems his personal policy
that what is good for America can be set aside for him). I see
nothing wrong with holding people to standards of honesty
and fidelity, or of condemning them when they not just fail but
make such failure into a modus vivendi.

BTW, Clinton did break the law if he advised Lewinski to lie
under oath. That is conspiracy to committ a felony.

If he and Hillary had said from the start that they have an open
marriage and the Bill likes to fool around, fine. But this is not
what he's done. In fact, this goes against his professed
beliefs. Thus, it does not require adherence to any
_antisexual_ moral code to see this as a character flaw.

I really tried to remain outside this debate!:/


Daniel Ust