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: wallacestevens who wrote (822)	8/27/1998 10:57:00 AM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

>>gun lobby, the nicotine lobby, the insurance lobby and the religious right. As long as those threats to women exist, there will be a Democrat in the White House (no matter where he wags his dog).<< Sir, that was, no doubt one of the most condescending, pedantic posts toward women I have yet to see in this forum. As a woman, I can assure you that I have sufferedno threatening behavior from the tobacco companies, insurance industries, the NRA or the religious right. This is a free country and the last time I looked all of those so-called threatening entities have done nothing more than exercise their freedom to produce goods, services, or ideologies. I do not need protection from them. I can simply avoid using their products, services or adherence to their beliefs if I so choose. Unfortunately, I do not have that option when it comes to funding an overly-intrusive government with a confiscatory bent. The only way to defend myself against such a real threat is to make certain a Democrat is out of the Animal, er White House. Actually, effectively it's already happened. Get used to it. bp

To: wallacestevens who wrote (822)	8/27/1998 2:42:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

Excuse me but I find the religious right to be far more threatening than any one individuals conduct, even if its the President, and this argument is even more pronounced based on the fact that I cant get any real facts out of this Starr investigation so any judgement on this issue would be presumption on my part. This does not mean that I condone anything the President has alledgedly done. You know people, just as a general rule, if some poster here has an attitude problem or resorts to nasty personal attacks then the replies tend to also be emotional sound bytes. Im sure thats what happened here with my friend Wallace Stevens. Not that I am not guilty of the same behavior btw. I dont see any evidence that any one individual has some sort of higher level intellectual capacity here vs any other. I do concede that someone who is say, a lawyer might be more equipped to argue the legal points of this issue vs. some of us technical types. Which is not to say that their opinion is more valid on the morality issues. MH

To: wallacestevens who wrote (822)	8/27/1998 3:56:00 PM
From: RJC2006	Respond to of 67261

<<<I think women voted for Clinton with their BRAINS, not their libidos, Dwight. The fact is, the Republican party has shown it is willing to sacrifice the interests of women in order to take and keep power.>>>> Abortion...<yawwwwn> <<Women didn't elect Clinton to be their daddy or their hubby.>> No more like their gigolo. <<<They elected him to veto legislation that comes out of the gun lobby, the nicotine lobby, the insurance lobby, and the religious right. >>> Yeah, we all know how much of this was coming out of Congress in 1992. Way to go Homer, you get a "red" star. <<<As long as those threats to women exist, there will be a Democrat in the White House (no matter where he wags his dog). >>> <laugh> Yeah, that's what you said in 1980.