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: Sidney Reilly who wrote (5707)	2/10/1998 9:57:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

More great parody of the Clintonista propagandists! Anyone that believes even a small percentage of that tripe is bound for a train wreck with reality in the coming months. That should be very interesting - especially when we find out that the Clinton gang did most of the leaking, both to damage Starr and to divert attention from the reality of his investigation. Effective in the short term, but won't work in the long run. (Remember, leaks are not in Starr's interest, they complicate and hinder his work.) Btw, as someone pointed out earlier, Clinton makes billions off tobacco and his deal with tobacco would extend that dependency. That makes Starr's mere thousands pale. Here's something they taught us in business school: Remember when tobacco advertising was taken off TV? Bad for tobacco? Nope - just about the best thing that ever happened. Seems all those saved advertising dollars flowed to the bottom line - the only effect was that it froze market shares. Tobacco became more profitable than ever. Clinton's deal with tobacco should likely prove just as lucrative - tobacco companies will be able to raise prices to offset their payoff to Clinton and the big government crowd while the companies add all those saved promotion $ to the bottom line. (Just as important and not to be overlooked - it's also a big winner for Clinton politically.) And a decent bet as an (un)intended consequence: Cigarettes' enhanced status as a "taboo" product actually augments its appeal to teens.

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (5707)	2/11/1998 6:48:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

Bob, I'm not saying that a video would in itself sway me. What I'm saying is that the Clinton administration is screaming like a stuck pig at each bit of telling evidence that comes out. They act guilty any way you measure it. So that's where I start with my hunch that yes, the tapes are real. If they aren't real, don't you think Monica would have said so by now? Look for some more clues, Cluso: Who has the most to gain by "leaking" tidbits from testimony? Starr has nothing to gain. The Clintons do, so as to lessen the impact of it once it comes out. They don't want all the damaging testimony to come out all at once, because the slam effect might be enough to turn the people against them. Whereas if they (the Clinton lawyers, who do have access to testimony) leak a little bit at a time, the public gets the "dribble effect", which they can shrug off, plus the repeated leaks tend to jade people and make them cynical about the whole thing. Fact: One person providing info to a major news agency recently said (I think it was Monday morning Feb 9th) that some recent leak came "from sources close to the President's defense team". This person stated this on a morning news show. Regarding Starr having represented Big Tobacco; who cares? Everybody has a job that they get paid for, right? Bill Bennett, Kendall, and the rest of Clinton's legal team aren't exactly working for free because they're such loyal Clintonites are they? Guess who wrote the Independent counsel law? The Clinton administration. Possibly they hoped to use independent counsels to damage opponents. A Clinton administration person said recently "The independent counsel law is turning into something way different than what we thought". I guess they never thought that Janet Reno would actually do her job. DK