SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Technology Stocks : LORAL -- Political Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Dragonfly who wrote (6)5/21/1998 11:35:00 PM
From: zebraspot  Respond to of 880
 
Paula Jones has more credibility than Clinton because she has no sordid track record.

Innocent until proven guilty is a concept that predators like Clinton take advantage of in these he-said/she-said exploits. But it isn't working so well for him anymore, because it's more like he-said/she- & she- & she- & she- & she- & she-said.

We all know him pretty well now. His own staff, current and former, wouldn't go out on a limb and aggressively assert his innocence when the Monica story broke. George Steph.sure acted like an insider that knew it was probably true. Ditto Panetta. Even snake-oil Carville was too quiet for awhile.

Legally there should be a presumption of innocence, but we're not on a jury here.

You want to be idealistic? Then extend the presumption of innocence and veracity to Paula. She deserves it more.



To: Dragonfly who wrote (6)5/22/1998 9:03:00 AM
From: Zoltan!  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 880
 
You are wrong on virtually everything you spewed and are obviously more than invincibly ignorant, if not just totally dishonest.

Dem House investigations cleared Bush of all charges you allege and the Iranians were sold defective guns, not state of the art technology that puts US at threat like Clinton has done for his illegal campaign cash. The Dems are and have always owned the low road. But Clinton is unusually corrupt even for a Dem.
Message 4556344

Clinton's legacy now includes being the Nuclear Proliferation President. Seems Slick is very good at selling things to the Chinese. Let's hope The Children don't pay too steep a price for that particular perfidy of his.

You really can't be so stupid as you amply convey. You're just gonna love the next two years. Clinton will make Nixon look like a political innocent.



To: Dragonfly who wrote (6)5/22/1998 11:15:00 AM
From: gdichaz  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 880
 
Have to chuckle. Congratulations on setting up this thread. Notice the temperature level and political bomb throwing on the main Loral thread is undiminished but what the ... Come on, you can do better than that particular Bush stuff which was proved false beyond the shadow of a doubt. If you wish to attack Bush then perhaps his soft spot for China (or realism perhaps) might be more on point. Of course, Clinton in his typical flip flop fashion ran his first election claiming Bush was too soft on the Chinese and then gradually reversed that toward warm and then warmer relations (in the national interest) from the day after rpt after the election on. Just for clarity, I agree in policy with both Bush and Clinton on China. I also think that economic santctions - such as against India are just the equivalent of shooting ourselves in the foot. Also IMO the broo ha ha about preventing encryption from anyone is laughable - especially the US ban on such stuff that Sun can not sell overseas even though developed independently by Russians Sun hired. Think attempts to limit dual use technology stupid, against the US interest (just helps competitors in other countries), are doomed to fail, and on and on. However, the fact that there now is direct clear information that in at least one specific case a Chinese daughter of the chief of the Chinese armed forces did pass some bucks to a person who was in the influence business is cause for some further investigation IMO. Also the idea that signing the last waver on the day a Chinese "businesman" described as an arms dealer just happened to be in the White House is an interesting coincidence at a minimum, no? That Clinton is purer than the driven snow is a little difficult to believe, but maybe so. Time well tell, maybe - but with the success of stonewalling and vicious attacks on anyone foolish enough to suggest that the King may have no clothes - I ain't holding my breath. Cheers. Chaz