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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (55018)	7/1/1999 12:25:00 AM
From: truedog	Respond to of 67261

to: Michelle Harris from: truedog <Andy> No, I don't think Andy is putting you on at all. There are quite a growing number of us that believe ( I realize you do not) that those who do not keep the commandments, regardless of their human reasoning, will suffer consequences that I will not take the time to enumerate. Don't get me wrong on one thing, all of us have sinned and broken one or more of the Commandments in the past but, having sought Jesus and welcoming him into our lives, those sins have been forgiven. Forgiveness of sins was the whole reason He died on the cross at Calvary. We may still stump our toe on occaision but, how we feel about it and how we make an honest attempt not to do it again, determines the continuance of our redemption. truedog

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (55018)	7/1/1999 3:01:00 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Multiple wives is not adultery (scripturally speaking) it is however against the law in San Fransisco, so...ooo. Fiddledy dee. Considering what is not against the law there, well...you know. Anyway as I understand the problem of adultery it involves the betrayal of fidelity. The Oprah and Ricky Lake stages are populated daily with folks who thought they could figure a way around that. Never seems to work out in the long run. Hey didn't we have this discussion already a year or so ago?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (55018)	7/1/1999 9:46:00 AM
From: Andy Thomas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I'm not putting you on. You don't understand because you don't want to. Andy

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (55018)	7/1/1999 10:16:00 AM
From: Les H	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

Democrats Pass Law Requiring Businesses to Implement Social Promotion SACRAMENTO, CA - The Democrat controlled California State Assembly today passed a a bill that would require all businesses registered within the state to use 'social promotion' in employee evaluations, raises and job advancement. The bill is being called the 'Employee Self-Esteem Protection Act of 1999'. If signed into law, it would forbid employers from denying a raise or promotion to an employee because of poor job performance, chronic tardiness or absenteeism, disrespect for superiors, lack of job experience, lack of job knowledge, poor treatment of customers, lack of a college education, lack of a high school diploma, or theft of company assets. According to the bill, employees who have been with a company the longest are entitled to an annual raise and promotion. The bill's sponsors drafted the legislation in response to what they call the 'Growing Self-Esteem Crisis' among California's employees. Said one sponsor, "The current employee review system used by businesses rewards only a few people. Everyone else is made to feel inadequate. This can have devastating effects on ordinary workers. This new legislation will protect their feelings of self worth and guarantee that they have an equal opportunity to advance in their company." Opponents of the bill claim that it will destroy businesses and ruin the economy. One Democratic Assembly woman responded to these claims by saying, "We have seen first hand how 'social promotion' has revolutionized our public school system over the past 25 years. There is no reason to believe that it won't have the same radical affect in the business sector." >>>I thought unions already accomplished this.