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: Catfish who wrote (15669)	6/6/1998 9:09:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

In that same vein: This week on the Hannity radio show a caller asker Senate-hopeful and previous two-time loser Geraldine Ferraro the following: Ms. Ferraro, I read an article several years ago in which you were quoted as saying that you had one wall in your office for pictures of "leaders" and one wall for pictures of "entertainers". You said you kept President Reagan's picture on the "entertainers" wall. My question for you is: Since both your son and husband are convicts, which wall do you keep their pictures on? Or do you just keep them up in the Post Office? Well, Geraldine was speechless and when she could talk she complained to Hannity about "abuse" and his failure to "screen" callers. She looked even worse when the caller continued to remark that Geraldine says people must respect Clinton while she obviously not only chose to disrespect a real President, but also to boast about it. Hannity defended the caller and said her question was valid. Last look Hannity invited Geraldine back to explain her poor behavior and Geraldine had accepted in an effort to dig her way out. Talk about "entertainers"!!! Mondull chose her as a crapshoot novelty act which crapped out. Geraldine will be toast in November if she ever explains her reason for running (which she hasn't) in an understandable sentence and manages to get the Dem nomination.

To: Catfish who wrote (15669)	6/6/1998 1:26:00 PM
From: lazarre	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20981

Darrel, you might want to read through this, too: <<<There is a conspiracy to bring down President Clinton. But this is no ordinary conspiracy. Not a tiny cabal like the one that met in Mary Surratt's boardinghouse to plot the assassination of Abraham Lincoln nor the scenario of a wigged-out novelist or film director. It is something quite different -- indeed, unprecedented in our history -- a "virtual conspiracy." In a traditional conspiracy, individuals come together one at a time, each carefully testing the others, until all are in accord on tactics and target. Secrecy is essential. When they finally move, they do so swiftly. All is won or lost in a single act. In feudal societies, if the group deposed the king and his barons, his realm and their lands passed to the chief conspirator and his vassals. Conspirators who failed paid with their heads. A virtual conspiracy has the same objective -- to depose a leader -- but the means are different. A virtual conspiracy starts in the open and requires publicity to flourish and gain adherents. Virtual conspirators test-fly stratagems, tactics and rumors. They do not meet in secret until they have discerned what will advance their undertaking and what will not. Moreover, by making their initial moves in the open, they attract others to their cause and to one another. Instantaneous communication is critical to a virtual conspiracy. So, too, is freedom of expression. Though there are laws against making false accusations, virtual conspirators who channel charges, allegations and rumors through the press or spread them on the Internet gain the protection of the First Amendment. Most thrusts fail, but some wound, making the hated target more vulnerable the next time around. Sound far-fetched?>>>> Sound familiar? Lazarre