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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (132253)	2/10/2001 9:59:33 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570239

"There's this thing called DNA." I assume that you are talking about the dress. Now if you are talking about hard, objective proof, that doesn't qualify. At most it would prove that he ejaculated in the presence of the dress, occupied by Monica or not. And oral or vaginal smear would have been proof. For Bush's drug other than alcohol use, we have several individuals who say they saw and/or participated with him and his denials. In the absence of Bill's confession, the dress is about on the same level. Considering Smirk's denial of his DWI "to protect his family", why should we find his denials of drug use more persuasive? As the Republican party pointed out repeatedly, a DWI in that timeframe was not that big of a deal, presumably a confession of drug use would be and have an even greater impact on his family, so he would be even more motivated to deny it... So what is it? Bill has been pilloried on even less evidence than has piled up in Smirk's court. Why the support of the Lying Weasel? Is it just because Bill was a Democrat and hence the Spawn of the Devil and Dubya is a Republican and given a carte blanc?