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 (516)	6/12/1998 6:22:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 880

How many times do I have to tell you my anatomy is off-limits to you. Please stop asking.

To: Dragonfly who wrote (516)	6/12/1998 6:26:00 PM
From: Bill	Respond to of 880

You asserted that Hughes and Lockheed gave no money. I told you they did and explained where you can find the facts. I'll make it simple for you. Are you now admitting that you found the donations made prior to 96? Yes or No?

To: Dragonfly who wrote (516)	6/12/1998 6:35:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 880

That's what I thought, nothing. You've got nothing. And can't even understand the debate. You're a real punk. Have some more fun posting your ridiculous non-sequitors and drooling over my body parts. Keep saying that I provided no proof, even though you are the one who made up the story. Throw up three or four more posts rife with insults and manly challenges. You know what you are. Good bye

To: Dragonfly who wrote (516)	6/13/1998 11:02:00 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 880

Hey Dicklessfly, I have yet to see an answer to my question. Did the muckity mucks at Hughes, et al. not contribute to Clinton as you alleged? You are the one who said there was no distinction made between donor and non-donors as far as launches. Where's the proof? Bill asked you to show that a non-donor got a launch. You haven't shown of course that non-donors got a launch because you obviously can't prove it. Post the proof Dicklessfly. And don't give us that crap about PACs and "corporate" donors. The issue is whether individuals at Hughes, et al. gave donations similar to Schwarz @ Loral. Put up or shut up. As far as the concept of innocent until proven guilty, if you bothered to read the posts I made you would see that I referred to the "purchasing of waivers" as an allegation which needed to be investigated. That's how you determine these things, by investigation. It'll be one more way for Bubba and his henchmen to hone their stonewalling skills. JLA