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: Lady Lurksalot who wrote (5109)	2/7/1998 10:28:00 AM
From: alan w	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Standards? It's funny that while Clinton's staff, advisors etc.. are expected to keep a set of "standards" (ie secretary def = secret), his own personal standards are his business, his only, and so what. What about the "standards" in a marriage vow? I seem to remember a phrase in my wedding about "clinging only to her". High "standards" and our president should NOT be mentioned in the same sentence. alan w

To: Lady Lurksalot who wrote (5109)	2/7/1998 2:34:00 PM
From: ViperChick Secret Agent 006.9	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

"All professions have standards. Secretary is, by definition, a keeper of secrets." by whose definitions??? and WHAT kind of secrets. I know my boss the President of the United States is lying to the American public...MAYBE....I know he is committing perjury/crime ....NO and that gets to morality...which I asked you about and you strayed to the hypothetical discussion and said what you think/would do is irrelevant. No, it isnt irrelevant when you slam someone like you did Betty Currie and say things like "FOR ANY REASON" "UTTER DISGRACE" etc etc...as you have in your posts.. What right do you have to judge Betty Currie? and definitely NO to the keeper of secrets when I am subpeoned... "I do expect--not "uphold"" upholding is raising to a standard....isnt that what you are repeatedly doing...to a standard MORE than the attorney/client confidentiality..."expecting" is considering an action obligatory.... you are "expecting" her to "uphold" the standard YOU have set for her and when she doesnt...yes you do vilify her.... "vilify" is to denigrate or defame... you called her "an utter disgrace": that is vilifying!!!!! Clinton--right or wrong, guilty or innocent of whatever--Betty Currie is, to my way of thinking, an utter disgrace to a time-honored profession." btw, you are saying that if Clinton is guilty of subjorning perjury or committing perjury himself..that Betty Currie should keep her mouth shut even under a subpeona????!??!!? "Mrs. Currie is in the wrong to have acted unilaterally--subpoened or not." btw, it wouldnt surprise me for Clinton to have said.. "I was never alone with her, right?" because this could be construed so many ways...like refreshing his memory...as in "Was I ever alone with Monica?" to "I was never alone with her, RIGHT!!!!!!!!" meaning..you get my drift and you know what to say. and it wouldnt surprise if he and Vernon Jordan didnt pull the SAME thing with Monica so that it could be construed many ways...