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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (24645)	8/30/1998 10:50:00 AM
From: George S. Montgomery	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Foul! First you advocate addressing Violence by removing (broadscale ownership of) Guns from the equation. Then you reject Steve's desire to address Vital Issues by removing (paranoid concentration on) the Blow Job from the equation. And you demonstrate this inconsistency by traipsing out several Vital Issues and proceeding to overshadow them with the Blow Job.

To: Grainne who wrote (24645)	8/30/1998 8:32:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Christine, <<I think there might be a little drug factory still standing in the Sudan, and a few innocent civilians alive there and in Pakistan, had it not been for the blow job.>> Here we disagree, and I don't think that the "Monica missiles" notion is very relevant. This has been the standard US response to such actions for years, and Clinton didn't ask to have embassies blown up at this particular moment. If the targets were badly selected, which may well be the case, the blame rests not with Clinton, but with the oxymoronically named Intelligence Establishment. If Clinton needed an issue to divert attention, why not use the global economic crisis, which could use some attention. I'm not sure if the whole escapade is a drastic lowering of standards of public morality or a drastic increase in our already-dominant tendency to wash our dirty laundry in public. I'm still quite convinced that this behaviour is a lot less new than the degree of our response to it. The cigar story is a bit different, and represents a rare intrusion of imagination into public life. I wouldn't have thought he had it in him. But the notion of a 21 year old American female being "in loco parentis" is a bit of a giggle. She strikes me as a scalp-hunting power tripper, and if she hadn't been doing it with Bill in his office, she'd have been doing it with some other boss in his office. Not that it's her fault exclusively, but the fault is certainly shared. There are plenty of others like her. Of those hundreds of other women, how many have complained? <<the market will be very destabilized>> Again, by the reactions, not the actions. The question is not whether what was done was right or wrong, but what's to be done right now. And the only thing I can see is to shove this thing in the dirty linen drawer where it belongs, get back to business, and let the voters have their say when the time comes around. I would have approved of an impeachment trial in the Iran-Contra case because it involved the use of executive power to directly subvert a legislative initiative, directly undermining the basic structure of government. What we have here involves the use of executive facilities to give a horny middle aged man and a horny young woman exactly what both wanted. It hardly seems in the same class. I wouldn't worry about him losing respect among foreign leaders. I suspect that most couldn't care less if he did every secretary in the White House. They'd probably be setting their intelligence people to the task of discovering whether he uses Viagra or tiger balls. He'll get sympathy, if anything. Steve