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 (465)	6/11/1998 10:40:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 880

Did you check on the CEOs of Hughes, et al.? Did they not contribute to Clinton or the DNC? Can you post a link showing they did not contribute? Your post regarding PACS was interesting but irrelevant. Lets see who puts up or shuts up. JLA

To: Dragonfly who wrote (465)	6/12/1998 10:22:00 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 880

Once again you ignore the facts. You claim that Lockheed and Hughes got waivers without contributions. You were challenged on that statement. Now you claim you were right because the employee PACs at these companies did not contribute to Clinton in 96. Nobody was talking about employee PACs and you know it. You made up this diversion to avoid the real issue, which was that you invented an alibi for this scandal. You claim those companies didn't donate. In less than ten minutes, I found that executives did. If you know any of the people at these companies, you could have found it too. And because I won't do your research for you, you throw juvenile insults around and try to change the subject. The subject is that you lied when you stated that Clinton gave waivers to non-donors. You made it up. Be a man and admit it.