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 (17559)	7/27/1998 4:37:00 PM
From: John Hensley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

Greenpeace- If you're going to try and have a serious conversation about this whole affair, at least spell STARR correctly.

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17559)	7/27/1998 4:44:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

>>When are you people going to stop browbeating the guy? Mark my words, he'll beat Star because Star has nothing on him. Even if he did have sex with her, its his personal business not ours. If its ok with Hillary, why should you care? Bateman is right, you must have some inner sexual inadequacies the way your harping on this. Green Pees: The issues are PERJURY. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. SUBORNATION OF PERJURY. It is you and your ilk who insist on talking sex, not I. No doubt that showcases your arrested development and manifest sexual shortcomings. >>And yes, I AM a vegatarian, thank you.(sic) We know you three lack a brain among yourselves, but is your trio the only ones on SI without spell checking too?

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17559)	7/27/1998 4:57:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

>>Even if he did have sex with her, its his personal business not ours. Completely true. If he had said from the start, "yeah, I had sex with Monica in the White House, what'cha gonna do about it" there would be no issue. The issue, as has been repeatedly pointed out by everybody except Clinton and his apologists, isn't whether he had sex with Monica. the issue is whether he committed perjury and obstructed justice, which are serious enough crimes for a lawyer and extremely serious crimes for the President, who has taken an oath to uphold the law and is the chief executive officer of the nation, responsible for all federal law enforcement. Sex schmex. Who cares, except for titillation. But perjury and obstruction of justice, those matter. Big time.

To: Greenpeace who wrote (17559)	7/27/1998 5:35:00 PM
From: Jim S	Respond to of 20981

Hey, GP-- You are absolutely right. I, too, believe in coincidence. Lots of coincidence. For example, who could argue that the people who died of "accidents" after it became known they had evidence on the 'Big Creep,' were not simply unlucky? And, any rational person would know that Paula Jones' IRS audit had nothing to do with her lawsuit. Ol' Web H. really WAS worth the $700K he got as a 'consultant.' Etc, etc. Naturally, we all know that the Mike McCurry resignation announcement had nothing to do with the Clinton subpeona announcement. And, it would take a real whacko conspiracy theorist to think that a guy the SS had been tracking for years would make news in the Capitol Bldg that would make the subpoena news irrelevent. Even though the SS labeled Westin a "low level threat to the president," Westin considered himself a "protector of the president." In fact, "... Weston got angry at the [SS] agents because he said they had told him he was threatening the president, not the other way around. His father said Russell Jr. threatened to sue the Secret Service over the incident. nytimes.com So, GP, you gotta be right. Ya can't keep blaming a guy like BC for all the coincidental things that go on around him. How'd you get to be so smart, GP? jim