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 (485)6/12/1998 2:39:00 PM
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. (You know you made it up.)

You made up this diversion to avoid the real issue, which was that you invented an alibi for the Clinton technology transfer 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. (Off-topic: Because I won't tell you who and how much and when, you think I really don't know. Trust me, I know.)

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.



To: Dragonfly who wrote (485)6/12/1998 2:55:00 PM
From: Bill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 880
 
<<Wrong again Dicklessfly. Bill asked you to name a company who received a waiver who was not also a donor a la Schwarz @ Loral. So far you have made an irrelevant posting about PACs. So where's the proof that none of the muckity mucks @ Hughes, etc. made a donation? It is your job. JLA>>

It's your job. The lawyer agrees.

Tell us you really made up the story about the non-donors. (Hell, we already know that you did. We just want to hear you say it.)