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: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (339821)	1/7/2003 7:03:23 PM
From: goldworldnet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Besides just a flip-flop of the party interests involved, I think the most substantial difference was although wrong doing by Clarence was unsubstantiated it had clearly been established that Clinton's behavior was chronic. * * *

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (339821)	1/8/2003 12:10:34 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

There was patent hypocrisy in the Democrats, particularly amongst the NOW Democrats where Thomas and Clinton were concerned. We must be fair and admit this dishonor. In the case of Thomas we had mere hearsay, an accusation by a liberal female against a conservative man, about a few comments that at one time would have been considered boorish at the very worst. Yet the Democrats went after Thomas’s head. In the case of Clinton we had a liberal female, a Clinton supporter no less, who very credibly accused a liberal man of no mere comment, but of rape – brutal rape. We had several other liberal females who also accused the liberal man of groping and rapes. And what did the Democrats do? They ignored or savaged the liberal women and defended the liberal man. Even had Thomas done what the Democrats claimed he did (which I think it is quite obvious he didn’t), the fact is his alleged infractions are simply not to be compared with Clinton’s alleged heinous crimes. Yet the Democrats defended Bill Clinton. That episode wounded me, and not because I am conservative. It disillusioned me as to the basic integrity of the people who claim to be fighting for the rights of the weak. I am healed, but my wounds are now covered by a wondrously tough and cynical scar.