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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (485)	8/23/1998 1:02:00 PM
From: Ed Frye	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>>So stop being an idiot, Ed Frye, and just admit that when Governor Clinton dropped his drawers in front of Paula, there is something very very wrong and vulgar with that. Keep in mind that Clinton was married at the time, also. Did I miss something? Was Clinton found guilty in the Jones' case??? Your statements would certainly lead one to believe so. NEWS FLASH: In addition to the presumption of innocence defendant's enjoy in our justice system, there is the simple FACT that Ms. Jones lost her case against Clinton, giving evidence that the truth is more likely to be opposite of your wishful thinking and fantasizing. To assume that he is lying about Jones because he lied about Lewinsky is just that, an ASSUMPTION. Why do you wish to assume the worst about President Clinton? Are you perhaps motivated by your own politics? In conclusion, I would have to be the idiot you wish/ASSUME me to be, to admit to something neither you nor I know is true. ed

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (485)	8/23/1998 1:26:00 PM
From: Ed Frye	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>>You know what's interesting, Ed? When Bob Packwood had his sexual troubles, the mainstream media and all the bitchy whiny feminists were very condemning and damning of sexual harassment. REMINDER#2: Clinton has NEVER been found guilty of sexual harrassment against anyone. If you will recall, Jones LOST her sexual harassment case against the president. And, Monica Lewinsky has not accused the President of sexual harrassment. And, there is no sexual harassment case pending against clinton as we speak. Thank you, however, for revealing your true stand on women's issues. By doing so you have made your motives in this matter obvious to all. Your interest in Jones, Lewinsky et. al. has NOTHING to do with what happened or may have happened to them and EVERYTHING with your selfish interests in your own political agenda - thus proving my point that this is a political witch hunt and nothing more. W/o sex there is no Paula Jones case. W/o sex there is no Linda Tripp. W/o sex there is no Monica Lewinsky. W/o sex there is no Kenneth Starr wiring Linda Tripp to record Monica Lewinsky to lay a perjury trap for President WJC. W/o sex there is no perjury trap and thus, no obstruction of justice nor any suborning of perjury. W/o sex Kenneth Starr had no case!!! Amazing how lily white our president is given that an attorney of Starr's stature, with unlimited scope and resources, and after 4 years, his entire case against the President rests on a sexual pecadillo. Shame on him and shame on the Clinton haters for putting their self interests above the country's interests. My advice to them is to apply their limitless energies to productive uses, perhaps having some great sex themselves would be a good start. Then again, maybe there aren't enough compliant "non-bitchy non-whiny non-feminists" to go around. What a shame. And the rest-of-the-world- watches and wonders, have the Americans gone mad?!

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (485)	8/23/1998 1:51:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

You know what's interesting, Ed? When Bob Packwood had his sexual troubles, the mainstream media and all the bitchy whiny feminists were very* condemning and damning of sexual harassment.* Will people please stop comparing the PJ case with the Packwood situation. There were legions of women alligned against Packwood, he was physically abusive, etc. In contrast the PJ case (WHICH WAS THROWN OUT WASNT IT) has this one individual, Paula Jones, no real consequences of the incident as anyone can see - her case is financially supported completely by people with an ax to grind against Clinton (who also spent $50K to give Paula a complete makeover so she would look to the public as someone respectable) etc. It is INSULTING to me to hear this PJ case lumped in with the many actual cases of sexual harrassment that happen each year - I think Paula Jones has personally done more damage to working women with this bogus opportunistic case than anything the right wing could have ever done directly. BTW I think there is a possibility that Clinton behaved inappropriately in that hotel room. I still think the PJ lawsuit is bogus. Hmmm you guys consider bitching and whining unattractive? Dang! No wonder nobody talks to me at cocktail parties! MH