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: Janice Shell who wrote (4945)	2/6/1998 7:47:00 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Janice, I personally would not like to see the White House turned into a bordello though. Would you?? I think if the President has an affair that's between his wife and his God if he so believes in one. What disgusts me is the guy using a 21 year old intern as his personal sex machine in the White House. Then looking the American people in the eye and lying so grossly about it. IF TRUE It's not right as a leader to be using your position of authority to use the young interns entrusted in your keep as your personal sex outlets. Especially in the White House where you both work. The Italian lady can believe we are looking behind closed doors all she wants. I would never look at the politics of Europe as something to emulate. Especially Italian politics. As to your second point, anyone dumb enough to have an affair with an intern in the White House, and to collect over 900 FBI files and leave them lying around, is dumb enough to do almost anything. Michael

To: Janice Shell who wrote (4945)	2/6/1998 11:36:00 PM
From: WalleyB	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

No NO No, I can't believe this! Don't use French Women to bolster an argument, it's an act of desperation. It's entirely untenable, trust me, I know...Boy do I know. Not a rational bone or brain cell in their bodies. Now, It's not, repeat, Not the private sex life of Bill Clinton that is in question in either the Paula Jones Case or the Lewisnsky matter. In the first case, it's a matter of sexual harassment(SH). Try SH in any other context and you would be out on your ear in a heart beat. I went through a mandatory seminar at work about the subject. So touchy, pardon the pun, is the issue with employers that they don't want even the possibility that a third party might be offended by what they think they saw or overheard. What is the definition of SH? According to the law, at least in my state, What ever a woman thinks it is. Talk about a hostile environment. Billy is alleged to have harassed Paula; who knows how many others. That is illegal! So says the laws of the land as promulgated by the Congress. In the latter case: Bill may have lied under oath and suborned perjury. That is an impeachable offence. Obstruction of justice is unlawful, So, if Clinton is guilty of these things he has commited crimes that are in within the range of what the constitution refers to as High Crimes and Misdemeanors. In addition, because of these allegations, the private life of the Pres is by default become a public matter. (In fact who ever said that any public official has a right to a private life anyway - I digress) In this situation Bill's private sex life is at the core of his problems. He has a pattern, it seems, of engaging in gratuitous sex with anyone he can find that is willing. Along the way, and it's bound to happen, he runs across women who are not swayed by his charm or manhood. They are repulsed and humiliated, and no doubt shocked that the poster boy for the "NOW" and standard barer for Feminist everywhere would try and pull off somthing like that (Boy it's really hard to avoid these puns). What appears to be taking shape is the fact that Bill has a sexual compulsion that so overwhelms him that he is willing to take tremendous risks. He can't control it, and is willing to use his office of the Presidency; of power and that which we entrusted to him through the democratic process to, obtain it. He has not only violated the law but disgraced it, the country and the people he claims so ardently to work for. If he is guilty, of course. regards No man.

To: Janice Shell who wrote (4945)	2/7/1998 2:01:00 AM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 20981

Janice, I read recently the French government is going to mandate a 30 hour workweek in order to improve the huge unemployment problem there. I understand the French people support this concept. That say's about all there is to say regarding the superior French viewpoints. Michael