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.

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

To: Dragonfly who wrote (23)	5/22/1998 2:45:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 880

Applause. Dragonfly, wish you well personally. What makes you think I am a "dittohead" and BTW do you have any idea what a "dittohead" actually means? You are right, I do not know who you are and obviously you don't have the slightest idea who I am or what I think. But you are free with your assumptions. Just using the forum you so kindly set up for conversation. But charges are not too useful IMO. I see a case for careful analysis and thorough investigation. Pending that have no substantive views except respect for Bernard L. Schwartz's vision and leadership of Loral - in which I have a direct financial interest. And I think he has every right to contribute to anyone he wishes. Skeptical that the "facts" on this will come out ever. But maybe they will. Are you looking for that? Chaz

To: Dragonfly who wrote (23)	5/22/1998 3:20:00 PM
From: Larry L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 880

Dragonfly: Of course nothing has been proven as to Clinton's guilt. Nothing will ever be proven as long as: 1. It is up to Janet Reno (who, by the way was hired by and works for Clinton) to send some of the allegations to an independent counsil for proper investigation. 2. Justices, who by their nature are liberal and many of whom have been appointed by democrats, can simply dismiss the case before it is even heard on very dubious grounds. I was under the impression that victims could get their day in court. 3. Once we do get an independent counsil assigned to one of the many issues for which Clinton is charged he is restricted as to whom he can question by Clinton's very questionable use of Presidential privilege. If the Republicans are so determined to bring down the Democratic Presidency through smear campaigns then why hav'nt they done it with past Democratic Presidents? This idea just recently popped into their heads. You really make yourself look foolish when you start speaking of conspiracies against Clinton and smear campaigns. Clinton provides plenty of issues all by himself the Republicans don't need to waste their energy making them up. Accusing the Republicans of initiating these smear campaigns is about as naive as you can get. Smear campaigns have been a part of politics for both sides (though admittedly a sad and pathetic part) probably as long as there has been elections.