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 (8880)	2/28/1998 8:33:00 PM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Agreed. As far as "libs" having never listened to him (as per Dwight)&#151an ultra-conservative uncle gave me a Limbaugh book for Christmas one year. I consider myself smack dab in the middle of moderate, and upon reading Rush's book, I must say taht thoughts must truly tumble disjointedly through his mind, making and breaking synaptical alliances, much like underpants in a dryer without Cling-Free. -MrB (Sorry Dwight, I really agree with you on other threads, this being the sole exception)

To: Janice Shell who wrote (8880)	2/28/1998 8:39:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

I won't argue with the term demagogue to describe Rush, but there's no rhyme or reason to suggest he isn't a "conservative" also. I plainly indicated that the info from Rush's show was third-hand, and in fact since it supposedly came from Clinton intimates, I, with my acknowledged bias, would be more than ready to doubt the veracity. But that all aside, the reference to something Rush said didn't detract from my point, which was simply that it is Clinton intimates who are being disparaged by people supportive of Clinton. I didn't take it that CGB was suggesting that the SF Chronicle was presenting truth, only that the SF Chronicle had an editorial which suggested that Americans would like a few more facts. A "liberal" local talk show host here, when the story first broke, stated vehemently that he was "hungry for more facts". That seems to me to be a quite rational position.