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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Barry A. Watzman who wrote (46378)	1/25/1998 6:12:00 AM
From: JPR	Respond to of 186894

Barry: <<And if you saw the tapes of the two of them in a crowd welcoming him back after a trip, it certainly looked like she ADORED him.>> A platonic distance between any two persons would be appropriate, considering the relative position, station, age, responsibility, and prevalent societal expectations in a public figure. Vulnerability in a person is a weakness that a thinking person would not take advantage of. Anything that is done not in the interest of a vulnerable person is inappropriate, even if consensual. Societal mores and practices are sometimes diagonally opposed to what is expected of our leaders. The very people who condemn indiscretions in public figure, practice the same acts in privacy with impunity. Judgment before facts is as inappropriate as the alleged act itself. Sexual predatoriness, usurpation, annihilation of the people (the vanquished) , places and property, occupation, and taking of slaves from among the vanquished etc are behavior patterns expected of the victor over the vanquished and celebrated in a leader in the past and sometimes in the present. It looks as if the leaders are genetically predetermined to carry these traits. Just look around. You will see leaders who fit the description. The same genetic traits are somehow necessary to uplift, lead, innovate, direct and take the country forward. It takes an extraordinary leader to rise above this genetic burden and be a benevolent leader with high standards of private and public behavior. Paul

To: Barry A. Watzman who wrote (46378)	1/25/1998 9:15:00 AM
From: Jules V	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: your comments on Nookiegate. I agree with what you say and wish to add a few observations. 1. The news media hype for ratings (already soaring) make me wonder if everyone really thinks the way they play it. 2. Clinton is unbelievably stupid: young woman seduced by authority figure in position of power. Haven't they heard in Arkansas about the possibility of sexual harrassment perception. 3. However, in this case so far a consenting relationship appears likely. It seems like more a question for the electorate than courts: a) I couldn't believe it when I heard that this white house woman had actually "worn a wire" and taped her "friends" phone conversations about her sex life. And the state sanctioned this. This should be the real crime. Bizzarre. b) I hear "special prosecutor" means investigating not a specific crime, but "a person". Ie. 6 years looking for anything on Clinton. $30,000,000 and the special prosecutor starts with a possibly real crime (whitewater), moves on to a possibly nothing "crime" (travelgate), a few more in between, and ends up with a loose zipper. Bizarre again. OK both political parties have had such prosecutors. But is this much different from a Soviet? c) I agree with you on the "cover up" situation. Also, consenting sex is not a "crime" to be covered up. As far as Clinton and influencing a witness: it is likely impossible to prove anyway. Can Lewinsky not respond as she pleases about her private affairs? I would not blame her for saying what she wanted about her sex life. She is 24 now and surely was capable of making her own decisions. d) Does Lewinsky have no rights to privacy. Why can't she say scr*w you Starr my consenting sex life is none of your business. e) Who is investigating Starr's life. When will he investigate your's? f) Jimmy Swaggert is still on Sundays, Newt's still around, Reagan hung on. But there's an asian crisis needing attention right NOW. Clintons gone in 2 years anyway. The next politician sex scandal will probably be viewed a little more like the ones in France (ho hum). h) The Republican's will have their chance soon enough. Clinton and his zipper are nothing new. And.. President Gore. Hmmm... brutal speaker. i) I don't understand this Paula Jones case. Is it criminal or civil? Isn't he supposed to have made a pass in a hotel room? j) Finally. Says Clinton, he did not ask that intern to lie on her deposition, he asked her to lie in that position....

To: Barry A. Watzman who wrote (46378)	1/25/1998 11:25:00 AM
From: Keith Fauci	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Since this has turned into the Clinton instead of the Intel thread. Remember what George Bush said, "Look at the man's character" and regarding what Clinton has accomplished, don't you mean the Republican led house and Senate?

To: Barry A. Watzman who wrote (46378)	1/25/1998 12:20:00 PM
From: carl a. mehr	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Barry & All, This is so much fun. Actually it is very sad! Having lived under the Nazis for 5 years, this regime of lies and deception is about to be lifted. Hallelujah! But how do I forgive those that voted for him the 2nd time? What effect will it have on the market when Clinton hightails it back to Little Rock?? Good reading while watching the Super Bowl game: Go to DejaNews, do a 'Lewinsky transcripts' search and you will get 32 hits. There is going to be a party in San Diego on Fiesta Island. ( Great place for dogs as they can roam without leash). This place is also the site of the annual Over The Line Tournament held here yearly. humble carl says stay tuned for party time. How does the 1st Saturday at 12 noon sound (after the great news is announced)?