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 : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jhild who wrote (3006)	1/28/1998 2:49:00 PM
From: tech	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

White house strategies. 1. DENY DENY DENY 2. ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK 3. CHANGE THE SUBJECT *note- we are between #2 and #3 The Presidency can only be jeopardized by the actions of the President. Mr. Nixon had a many more powerful enemies that Clinton could ever dream of. However, his downfall was a direct result of his own actions. White Water, Filegate, Travelgate, vince Foster, Fund raising .....etc. etc....etc. What all these had in common was that the President had plausible deniability. "no one told me" "I was unaware of it" However, in this case, "Slick" has no deniability. He is the one who would have direct knowledge of it. That is why he through. He has done it to himself.

To: jhild who wrote (3006)	1/28/1998 5:25:00 PM
From: halfscot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Hmmmmm....sounds a lot like that far left-wing conspiracy that involved the "Deep Throat" character who helped bring down Nixon (deservedly so I might add). Also what about that far left-wing conspiracy headed up by Lawrence Walsh who spent $50 million of our tax dollars to 'get' Reagan - most of which was not spent on Iran-Contra. I loved Tom Foley crowing about investigating Bush and the "October Surprise" even though there was no credible evidence whatsoever. Remember that he said something to the effect of having to investigate because there was the mere "appearance" of impropriety-no evidence as in the campaign abuses but use our tax dollars to investigate anyway and find nothing. Sounds like a well organized left-wing conspiracy to me. Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander and both the independent counsel act, sponsored by the dems, and investigating "appearances" of impropriety are coming back to haunt them now. I find it hilarious too how the organizations fronting Paula Jones are called "conservative" organizations but are the ACLU, NAACP, and NOW called "liberal" organizations when they attack conservatives and represent liberal individuals. To test this thesis has anyone out there seen either the ACLU, NAACP, or NOW attack a liberal or liberal ideas? I would like to know if they have. To be fair the ACLU does, rarely, take on right-wing causes like the KKK's and Nazi's right to demonstrate but most would agree they represent liberal or left-wing causes well over 90% of the time. I can't recall the NAACP or NOW ever going against a liberal. Can anyone honestly say that all three of these organizations wouldn't be all over this case if the prez was a Republican? I just find it so illuminating how labels are applied to conservatives while the word 'liberal' or 'left-wing' is almost never heard in describing anyone or any organization from the left. Speaking of conspiracies. A democrat on a talk show out here, disgusted with how her side is handling this controversy, told how she was told at her democratic organization offices of this being not just a right-wing conspiracy but a 'Jewish right-wing conspiracy'. She told how they think Netanjahu (apologies for my misspelling his name) set up Lewinsky, who's Jewish (she is?), to "do" Clinton because he and Clinton don't get along. Man, what next! halfscot