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 : Did Slick Boink Monica?

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: lazarre who wrote (16146)6/16/1998 7:27:00 AM
From: Zoltan!  Read Replies (1) of 20981
 
>>This thread never ceases to amaze me.

That's good - the truth must amaze you since you are all errors and no facts. It's fairly obvious that you get your misinformation from Salon "magazine".

Salon has been consistently wrong. Salon is financed and written by Left Dems who appear to have no interest in the truth, other than, as is their nature, concealing it at all costs.

It has been revealed:

That one of Salon's chief financial backers is Silicon Graphics. That Silicon Graphics organized Silicon Valley $$$ support for Clinton in 1992. That Clinton reciprocated by allowing Silicon Graphics to sell "super computers" to the totalitarian Chinese despite warnings about national security.

The recent China inquiry has made clear that the totalitarian Chinese have used those computers to enhance their nuclear weapons and the targeting of US cities with their missiles. That led to the nuclear insecurity and proliferation among India and Pakistan.

If you connect the dots you can see why Silicon Graphics is funding this transparent effect to discredit Starr and save their benefactor, Clinton. Surely Silicon Graphics is paying to save itself from inquiry into the Clinton contributions and sale of supercomputers to the totalitarians.

Btw, The Post's Isikoff was on "Charlie Rose" last night and totally obliterated all of Brill's "arguments" in "Content". In fact, Isikoff made a persuasive case that Brill's jouralism was a precise model of the shoddy journalism that Brill was thought to have wanted to expose.

Isikoff said for the record that every "leak" Brill associated with Starr actually came from the WH or from those close to the WH. Isikoff went on to say that even when the WH was on record as the source, some WH flack would blame Starr.

As Prof Turley stated, Brill's article was such shoddy journalism that even a small town paper would not have run it. It was a "hit" piece that got the usual suspects all excited because they think it will get the spotlight off their boss's criminal activities and buy them more time.

It will, for a couple of days. Then the facts will come out and the WH spin machine will move on to spinning the newest lie in that web of deceit known as the Clinton presidency. But the fact remains that Clinton, the most corrupt President in modern, if not all US history, is politically moribund and he and the Dem party are locked in a death embrace.

Now that's a happy ending.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext