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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lorrie coey who wrote (69035)	12/28/1999 2:17:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

So what's your point? There's been screw ups before and there will be again. But we've NEVER had a sitting President get caught red handed committing perjury, obstructing justice and using the Oval Office as a whorehouse. Your priorities seem a little skewed, IMO. JLA

To: lorrie coey who wrote (69035)	12/28/1999 2:23:00 PM
From: Edwarda	Respond to of 108807

Oh, No, No,No, Edwarda...I say Litigate at Will. What on earth are you trying to say here? Are you sure that you are responding to my posting and not some other? "Questionable" is a moderate word to describe behavior that some find deplorable. imo, the biz of the Clintons IS far less interesting than the history of The Bush Dynasty. Do you apply the same standards to the Kennedy Dynasty? By "debaucle" I presume you mean débâcle? You wonder what my "special access" IS...? Watch the media...especially advertising...from CNBC to ESPN 2. It may be that you are watching too much television. I'm simply saying that all the theatrics in politics today IS basically, M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G...it's MellowDrama, it's mudslinging, it's imageCreating, it's A-D-V-E-R-T-I-S-I-N-G, all day long, Every Day... And you don't think that the Clintons have been the flowering of all this marketing? Interesting.... Don't you think that we are wandering a bit afield from the original issue having to do with maleness as being inherently antagonistic to women?

To: lorrie coey who wrote (69035)	12/28/1999 2:42:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Upon review, IMO, this post is more loathsome than I originally thought possible. How does this post relate in any way to the original post which started your conversation with Edward wherein you made a number of ridiculous sweeping unsupported statements relative to "maleness"? Assuming the response does not constitute a non-sequitur, how does the fact that there were some shenanigans in the 80's relative to S&L's excuse perjury, et al. by the highest elected official in the Executive Branch? What transgressions of the "Bush dynasty" are you talking about? Sounds like another sweeping unsupported smear similar to the earlier "maleness" comments and a neat way to refocus the discussion away from the corner you painted yourself into. JLA