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 : Healthcare.com Corporation (Nasdaq: HCDC)was [HDIE] -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Starduster who wrote (2434)	8/4/1998 5:12:00 PM
From: Mighty_Mezz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15094

techstocks.com shows the strength of our little HDIE today.

To: Starduster who wrote (2434)	8/4/1998 5:23:00 PM
From: Texas77	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 15094

<<Your right about it being Hillary's business. And the issue is that's were it should, be not with the country at our expense. IT's costing us Billions of $$$$.>> Sorry to disagree. Where you aware that a high level security clearance can be revoking for messing around when you are married. Thinks like that can be a matter of National security wether you admit it or not. If he is getting strange stuff and Hilary doesn't know it - then it can place him in a compromising position. I sure wish that the American people would pull there heads out of the sand and stop saying it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter to you and that's fine - but there are a lot of Americans that it does matter to. The polls would probably reflect it if the liberal press were to ask the questions in the proper manner rather than frame them in a fashion that permits them to put their spin on things. Lets wait until November and we will see if it matters to the majority of the American people or not. I hope I am positively surprised and a lot of Clintons comrades will be looking for work!!! Unfortunately - I suspect that it really doesn't matter to most. But lets wait and see.

To: Starduster who wrote (2434)	8/5/1998 1:17:00 AM
From: jake burns	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15094

The key factor for me about lying is whether the lying party owed a duty to those whom he was speaking. I'm not fond of dishonesty, but I don't have a right to expect it from all persons on all subjects. Everyone has a right to their privacy, and certain things like family, sex, religion, etc., are quite personal. The decision rests with the individual doing the talking, not with those doing the listening...Of course, you owe certain duties to certain people. For example, if you know someone will invest in a stock on your information, you have an implied duty of honesty to that person. If you're married, I believe you owe a duty to your spouse. With respect to Bill Clinton, the only duties of honesty he has would be to Hillary and Lewinsky, but not to the general public. I believe he has an obligation to the public to be honest in all public affairs, though....but I would draw a distinction between the public and the private. Like Dave, I wish our money would not be wasted on comparatively trivial matters.