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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D. Long who wrote (185291)	9/22/2001 8:05:46 AM
From: Ga Bard	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Long you have to understand you are dealing with Left wing. Double talk, double standards and spin doctors but rarely can they stand and actually show anything evident. Their posts and words should be considered self-evident. Heck take the double standard of say Condit would is under fire yet they will give their lives for Clinton. Bill Clinton and Mr. Condit both: • Had affairs with an intern and both denied it, way beyond the point of believability. • Sought affidavits from other women with whom they'd allegedly had affairs denying those affairs. Both, in the process, likely obstructed justice. The sleazy defenders of both tried to minimize this potential felony as a minor ethical fraction at most. • Trashed women who had asserted they had been involved with them. • Had secondary victims whose stories seriously damaged them (Paula Jones and Anne Marie Smith). • Left a trail of circumstantial evidence by exhibiting a pattern of conduct with other women that was so consistent as to be undeniable. • Issued instructions to their victims as to how to avoid detection and deny the relationship upon being caught. • Probably had no romantic feelings for their victims but led them to believe otherwise in order to perpetuate the sexual relationship. • Employed legal mouthpieces to make ridiculous arguments on their behalf, many of which did not pass the laugh test. • Displayed narcissistic characteristics and demonstrated no remorse, indeed a chilling absence of conscience for their conduct, much less a concern for their respective young victims. • Had the audacity to exploit their own families as shields to hide behind as an excuse not to answer specifics concerning the respective adulterous relationships. • Insulted our intelligence by saying that the American people would understand their unwillingness to drag their families through it. • Assaulted the English language and the people's intelligence by referring to their adulterous exploits (which they would not specifically admit) as "mistakes." • Explicitly forbade their victims to breathe a word of their affairs, but both victims violated the decree and confided in a close friend or relative, each of whom came forward. • Have distinguishing physical characteristics (if you get my drift), according to certain of their respective victims. • Claimed they were not perfect, but refused to apologize for specific behavior. The non-apology apologies, being generic, were diluted to the point of meaninglessness. Ultimately, they both excused themselves with the rationale that "everybody does it." • Have characterized their conduct as private and thereby off-limits to public scrutiny, thereby invoking the myth that one's private character can be reasonably separated from his public conduct. • Used sex as a sword and a shield. They tried to diminish their conduct as a private matter involving sex, all the while denying sex was involved. And, while claiming that the matter was only about sex, they nevertheless complained that too many questions revolved around sex. Query: Would Mr. Condit have preferred more questions about murder? • Exhibited righteous indignation and lashed out at having to answer legitimate questions about their conduct. • Denied making damaging statements to certain third parties, and when confronted with the third parties' statements to the contrary, brushed them off as a misunderstanding on the part of the third parties. • Became general national security risks by exposing themselves to the risk of blackmail. • Have enabling spouses. • Have exemplary brothers. • Drew primary victims whose fathers were doctors. • Were less than cooperative with investigators and brazenly insisted that they had been perfectly cooperative. • Attacked the media for sensationalizing the stories and simultaneously sought to manipulate the media in an effort to rehabilitate their public images. Why, then, are Democrats so willing to throw Mr. Condit overboard when they sold their souls to protect Mr. Clinton? Answer: Sadly, it all boils down to political expedience. Mr. Condit is expendable, and Mr. Clinton was not. So, in order to make sense of all this, we must understand the Clinton defense doctrine and the Condit corollary. The former is that felonies committed by Democratic officeholders to cover up adulterous relationships are excused. The latter is that the rule only applies to those Democratic officeholders who are unusually good liars -- unusually good – and who are high enough on the food chain to matter to the Democratic cause source: washtimes.com P2bAAAT

To: D. Long who wrote (185291)	9/22/2001 8:30:06 AM
From: 10K a day	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

they are everywhere, dude....do you see that fly on the wall?