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: lorrie coey who wrote (62976)	12/4/1999 12:48:00 PM
From: truedog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

LC, what you don't seem to UNDERSTAND,is that people tend to MISUNDERSTAND you because the senseless product of your diarrhea of the mouth, is not UNDERSTANDABLE. TD

To: lorrie coey who wrote (62976)	12/4/1999 4:40:00 PM
From: C Kahn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

lorrie coey, I wouldn't teach my dog to fetch any body part of any animal. What kind of jackass gets a hard-on over beaning a tiny rodent, or sitting in a tree drinking a beer, pissing into the wind, waiting for the kill to present...that's hunting deer...? Since I have never gone hunting, I don't presume to know the details of how it's done. I suppose that's understandable if one must spread em' as a way of survival. What in the world are you talking about? Sympathise with the oppressor, if you like...at your own peril. I'm not being oppressed by anyone. Silence is Complicity, Ms. Kahn...and I accuse! I'm trembling in fear of your accusation. And by the way...nobody feels sorry for me Well, I guess you're right about that. How could anyone feel sorry for a person who would sooner skin them alive than say hello.

To: lorrie coey who wrote (62976)	12/4/1999 4:54:00 PM
From: jimpit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

American Spectator spectator.org CAMPAIGN 2000 SPECTATOR by Byron York Posted: 3 December 1999 Is Gore Nuts? Years ago, when I was a young reporter in Washington, I came across a little scandal called Watergate. I wrote the first stories about it. I was the one who started it all. Now what would you think if I, in all seriousness, told you that? After all, even if you weren't conversant with the facts of Watergate, you could easily find out that I did not in fact discover the scandal, that I did not write the first stories about it, and that I was not the one who started it all. At which point you would think that I was, at the least, a little weird. Or that I had a problem with the truth. But not a mild, garden-variety problem with the truth -- say, one in which I embellished my r‚sum‚ a bit, perhaps claimed that I had a degree from a school when in fact I had left before graduation. No, if I told you the Watergate story, you would suspect that I had a serious and compulsive urge to lie, without any concern that my lies would be discovered. And you might well reason that my actions were symptomatic of some deeper problem. Which leads to the question: Why isn't anyone saying that about Al Gore? This week the vice president, speaking at a high school in Concord, New Hampshire, went out of his way to tout his already well-known environmental record. "I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal," he told the students, referring to the neighborhood that sat atop a toxic waste dump. "I had the first hearing on the issue. I was the one that [sic] started it all." As it turns out, he wasn't. Gore did not discover Love Canal. By the time he held hearings on the issue, the place had been declared a disaster area and everybody had moved out. And, needless to say, Gore was not the one who started it all. Gore's statement came after similarly fantastical claims about his role in the novel "Love Story," his responsibility for the birth of the Internet, and several less spectacular misrepresentations. Taken together, those incidents seem to indicate that something strange is going on inside Al Gore's brain. Yet most public comment about the issue has been light-hearted, with a variety of pundits treating the vice president's "misstatements" as amusing anecdotes. They're more than that. Gore's pattern of making outlandish and easily refutable claims says something about him -- although just what that is is not entirely clear. Why would the vice president tell preposterous tales that can be quickly disproved? Can he not distinguish the real from the imagined? Is he trying to commit political suicide? Does he think we're morons? I don't know. But none of those things would be a healthy character trait for a president. A few weeks ago, National Review's Richard Brookhiser published a provocative piece in which he theorized that Gore's actions -- his strange rants, inappropriate shouts, and animatronic movements -- suggest that the vice president is depressed. Maybe that's so. But his compulsive and obvious lies may point to something even more serious. Simply put, Gore may be quietly going nuts. Whatever the case, it's not a joke. Political observers should stop trading quips about Gore's gaffes and try to understand that there might be something terribly wrong with the man. Byron York is a writer with The American Spectator. spectator.org Copyright ¸ 1999 The American Spectator. All rights reserved.

To: lorrie coey who wrote (62976)	12/4/1999 5:20:00 PM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I know it's hard to believe, but there are people in this country who hunt in order to eat well. Yes, there are people who are that poor. Squirrels are used to make gravy to pour over rice and beans. I was offered a plate of it once but I declined.

To: lorrie coey who wrote (62976)	12/4/1999 5:50:00 PM
From: C Kahn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

lorrie coey, I don't know why you decided to drag me into this "Hunting" debate. If you don't care for the people who hunt, why don't you tell them about it, rather than me?

To: lorrie coey who wrote (62976)	12/4/1999 6:11:00 PM
From: C Kahn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

lorrie coey, in all fairness to the hunters, I think some of them hunt to provide their family with food. And some of them like the idea of being self-sufficient.

To: lorrie coey who wrote (62976)	12/4/1999 6:19:00 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<And by the way...nobody "feels sorry for me"...the "pitty" you misperceive has more to do with litigation than it does pitty/compassion/empathy.>> I do. I feel bad about anyone with an inoperable tumor.

To: lorrie coey who wrote (62976)	12/4/1999 6:31:00 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<What kind of jackass gets a hard-on over beaning a tiny rodent, or sitting in a tree drinking a beer, pissing into the wind, waiting for the kill to present...that's hunting deer...? >> There are some real sickies in the woods. I have quit hunting but I used to do it. Loved fried squirrel. I know a river rat who almost lives on squirrel. Now as to sitting in a tree, I didn't drink beer or anything else while hunting. It's more work than you think. I used to spend a week scouting and building a blind. Any game I shot I either ate or gave to the needy, fully butchered. My grandfather was a market hunter during the depression, hunted rabbits. Sold them 2 for a quarter. He made an extra $5 a week doing that and that was needed money. Edit. I think you will find most good hunters are really into the environment. Same with fishermen.

To: lorrie coey who wrote (62976)	12/4/1999 8:07:00 PM
From: George Coyne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<[And by the way...nobody "feels sorry for me"...>> Au contraire, I feel sorry for you. G. W.

To: lorrie coey who wrote (62976)	12/5/1999 8:26:00 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

The fact is, I have much more compassion for the innocent animals than I do for the males who hunt them. Sure coey, and Bill Clinton hunts not squirrels, but women-- popping and field dressing them without shame as if they were penny-a-glass lemonade, and you are amongst the first and loudest to extol his virtues. I do not think the animals will much benefit from this enabling compassion of yours, certainly women have not yet benefited from it. I don't particularly enjoy hearing the "mighty hunters" talking about killing animals, stalking/hunting/skinning squirrels, deer, etc. Well now this is quite easily remedied. Surely there is no sense in offending yourself with messages of gutted deer and skinned squirrels. I mean really! Squirrels....?!!! Indeed coey, and they are good too-- fried, stewed and Bar-Bee Que?d. What kind of jackass gets a hard-on over beaning a tiny rodent, or sitting in a tree drinking a beer, pissing into the wind, waiting for the kill to present...that's hunting deer...? Now coey I spend all this time husbanding you, and you talk like this? Well if you are gonna talk like this you ought at least to try and get the thing right. Firstly, I could not get a "hard-on," as you say, about killing no squirrel. Well, I suppose were I a squirrel and I killed another squirrel, you know, a male squirrel who was a competitor or something, then I guess I could get sexually excited about all the additional females I would add to my little squirrel harem and whatnot. But other than that? And what are all these squirrel pellets about sitting in a tree, drinking beer and urinating? Mercy coey, you can?t be up there drinking beer and going to the bathroom. I mean the smell alone would pretty much end the hunting day right there. That's a fatasswhitetrashpig with no respect for Nature... And if he?s drinking beer and peeing out of a tree, he is a dumb filthy son-of-a bachelor also. ...he's there to defile and destroy in a gluttonous, drooling trance...he's there for the "kill" and the power he feels when he "takes" the life's breath of an animal that has no defense, [and not much "meat" in a squirrels case]...he's there to watch it die and feel omnipotent... I suppose you are right. But I must say while the squirrel does not produce a great deal of meat, if one cuts and grill?s it properly, it makes a wonderful hors d?oeuvre. Modern "hunting" is male blood lust...thrill-killing. Which is why I prefer to hunt the old fashioned way, with a rifle or bow. Otherwise, they would go to Safeway. Oh, but you see going to the Safeway is modern hunting. It is the safe way after all-- no risk of failure, no risk of life and limb, no sweat. The animals are genetically modified and pumped with hormones and antibiotics in a factory, confined in small cages in massive numbers for the sole purpose of being systematically slaughtered and shrink wrapped so that logically inconsistent folk can sanctimoniously browbeat those who, unlike them, are willing to think and sweat for their meat. As you can see, I have no reverence for hunters...no matter what the prey is. And yet you revere Bill Clinton (grin).