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: Greenpeace who wrote (17151)	7/21/1998 10:00:00 AM
From: MulhollandDrive	Respond to of 20981

>>Leave them alone so they can finish the job they started in 1993<< Which jobs, the snow jobs or the blow jobs, they've been undeterred in those categories thus far..... Peace, baby.... bp

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17151)	7/21/1998 10:14:00 AM
From: alan w	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Why would anyone read a book by her and expect to be enlightened on life. She, by your own admission, leads one of the most demeaning and self confidence shattering existences I've ever seen. She doesn't even know to get out of a bad marriage. Her life is a lie. She pushes that lie of a life on her daughter. Think about it. And then, the coup de gras, she thinks we need or want her advice. She wouldn't make a wart on my parents rear end (Neither would the Prez). The President and the first lady are the worst sort of role models. I'm surprised Chelsea would even want to be around them. What a joke! Keep talking GP, but don't think everyone believes the same drivel our First Family wants us to. Found may turtle eggs down there? alan w

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17151)	7/21/1998 10:18:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

>>You wouldn't say that if you read her book, It Takes A Village. Her years of dedication to children's causes have elevated her to the stature she now enjoys as the most respected First Lady of the century. Even ahead of Eleonor Roosevelt. Now we all know that you are doing a parody of the prototypical mindless liberal. But successful parody should show some bounds, which you have trespassed egregiously with that "Hillary as saint" nonsense. She's Bella Abzug with bad legs. Polls actually show Hillary to the the most reviled first lady in history, replacing Eleanor, and that's why she hides behind children. People remember her failed attempt at government takeover of health care, her greedy and illegal cattle speculation which netted her $100k, her tax deductions for Bill's used underwear, her hiding of Whitewater billing records (obstruction of justice) and her widely quoted contempt for stay-at-home moms. Heck, she even went to New Zealand and insulted them by saying she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary! It wasn't too long before she was laughed out of that country, making Americans very envious.

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17151)	7/21/1998 10:22:00 AM
From: halfscot	Respond to of 20981

Greenpeace: C'mon...you're pulling our chain again, aren't you? It's well known that It Takes A Village was 1)ghost written by a woman who was never acknowledged in the credits (as was Profiles In Courage supposedly written by JFK-NOT!!) and 2) was plagiarized from a work with the same/similar name written by an African woman. When the African author was asked how she felt re: her plagiarized work she commented that it was O.K. since it was the First Lady and it gave her work much more exposure than it would have received otherwise. halfscot

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17151)	7/21/1998 10:41:00 AM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 20981

As a Greenpeacer, what the hell do you care about children anyway? You'd probably be happy if 90% of 'em upped and died thus reducing the plague of humanity on "Our Mother".

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17151)	7/21/1998 5:11:00 PM
From: Andy Thomas	Respond to of 20981

Now you're here touting "It takes a village." Didn't Hillary plagiarize that pabulum? No, it doesn't take a village. If you want to have children and be moral at the same time, you raise them and pay for them yourself. So Clinton gets 49% of the vote where 49% of the voting population showed up. I hardly see that as an overwhelming majority. What is that - 24.5%?!! I can see that Americans are really getting behind this administration - not. I think most americans realize that the politicians are all the same, so they don't vote. At least in the old soviet union they were honest about it... they simply gave you one candidate instead of a false choice between two, which is what we've had for at least the last 3 presidential elections. FWIW Andy