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.

Biotech / Medical : Ligand (LGND) Breakout! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John O'Neill who wrote (13708)	1/25/1998 12:16:00 AM
From: Hippieslayer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32384

One thing to keep in mind that the only one making money off of the Jones/clinton trial are the attorneys. The big winner is Bob Bennet to the tune of roughtly 2 million dollars. All Paula wanted was an apology for the remarks made about her from, I believe, James Carville. The white house is as much to blame for what is going. To say that they aren't is just ignoring the obvious. As far as how biotechs are concerned, if this really turns out to be true, you can bet that the dems will be in quicksand this election year, especially if CLinton doesn't resign. Every dem will avoid him like the plague. Hopefully more libertarian orientated Repubs will be elected to help really overhaul the FDA. That would be nice. And not just for the greedy "lets approve every drug as fast as we can" reasons but that at least there is some chance that drugs that can actually save lives will come to market asap. To be blunt, I'd rather have a drug that kills a few people and then have it pulled off the market than the FDA holding up a drug that could save lives while many die because of the hold up. I don't want to see anyone die, but it's a matter of a trade off.

To: John O'Neill who wrote (13708)	1/25/1998 12:34:00 AM
From: Proton	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 32384

Re: Don't Get Me Started... [to John: please don't take this post entirely as a response to yours. ] Nancy's little partisan screed almost pulled me into the Zippergate discussion here, but I held firm. Now the volume of Off-topic posts has finally compelled me to lose my topic-germaine virginity. I couldn't care less about Clinton's dalliances, per se. I have watched the Paula Jones case with grim satisfaction, though. The left (and that is where Clinton comes from, make no mistake), has shoved the sexual harassment creed down the throat of American business for nearly two decades. Now that one of their own is getting hoisted by that petard (as long as we are stealing from Shakespeare), it is delightful to watch the N.O.W. gang having the vapors. Sex is not the issue, here. Suborning perjory is. In fact, Clintion may have committed perjury, if his deposition in the Jones case does not square up with Ms. Lewinsky's immunity-driven version of things. If Mr. Clinton committed obstruction of justice, he is a felon, and felons ought not be in the Oval Office (please don't lecture me on indictment v. conviction and the possibility of a Gore pardon: I viewed Nixon as a felon, and I'll do the same with Clinton). Starr, on the other hand is just a good ole attorney "whore" who has a bigger fee. On this point, we happen to agree. I am nauseated by Mr. Starr's fishing expeditions and his pushing the envelope on the Special Prosecutor enabling legislation. His original mandate was Whitewater, not sexual misconduct. However, like all prosecutors, the need for a scalp outweighs any concept of decency or proportion. However, I don't recall the left as upset when Lawrence Walsh was engaging in his fishing expedition. Oh, those meanies on the Wall Street Journal editorial board were being wayyyy too harsh on Mr. Walsh, who dissipated millions of dollars on his wild contragoose chase of Reagan and Bush. Perhaps he should have spoken to people who went to Bush cocktail parties. The Special Prosecutor law is a disaster, not as bad as, say, civil forfeiture or RICO, but appallingly close. American jurisprudence would be well served by its repeal. [here's where I do respond to you, John] I am sick to pieces of hearing what the French think of this affair, just as I was nauseated by H. Clinton's glowing reports of European social welfare programs. When the French get their unemployment down to single digits, they can lecture us on sexuality and economics. Pý