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: lazarre who wrote (59013)	8/20/1999 9:21:00 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Again, you're posting the leftest Salon. I asked-<<She initiated a financial penalty on Service Corporation on a finding that they violated state regulations. >> She initiated a penalty, did the court enforce it? Who was found guilty? <<She pursued the fine doggedly. Shortly thereafter she was fired.>> Well God damn. Someone pursuing their own agenda that they can't prove gets canned. That's another first in the History of the World. <<She initiated a financial penalty on Service Corporation on a finding that they violated state regulations. >> Might or might not have held up. <<They went to Bush's chief of staff. >> Don't see GW actually being in the mix. And how did you get from she to they? Evidence GW personally had anything to do with this? Any court decisions that the Service Corporation did wrong?

To: lazarre who wrote (59013)	8/20/1999 9:39:00 PM
From: Curlton Latts	Respond to of 67261

The Rapist King endangered his victims with AIDS, but Hilla Hun already was aware of these risks via her own "alternative lifestyle" predilections. It takes a village idiot gets new meaning! newsmax.com

To: lazarre who wrote (59013)	8/21/1999 3:44:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 67261

I liked connect the dot games on restaurant placemats when I was younger. This gives me the same fond glow. Some vague notion that there was a "problem", and a casual comment in the office along the lines of "how's it going", are compatible with testimony that he did not discuss the case or have personal knowledge of the particulars. Heck, it would be easy to misremember such a trivial encounter. The fact that SCI alleged a problem with the investigation, and sought redress, does not ipso facto mean that they were wrong and vindictive. Maybe they were right, and the woman was out of control. Anyway, we have a way to go before this turns into much.....