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: Rick Slemmer who wrote (1928)	9/8/1998 11:19:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

if that's the case, are you therefore ideologically obligated to defend every pot-smoking, flag-burning, draft-dodging womanizer I see what you are getting at with your post but I would like to point out that NONE of the above issues are even close, even minutely close to being as offensive to me as the standard right wing stance on family values. Do you people understand what family values does to working women? Have you ever thought about that? It essentially means that any woman who really wants that top mgmt job or executive position is going to have to decide early on that she wont have a family and thats pretty much it. Because in general the situation is, if you give up everything for your career, and then all the sudden youve got a few million or something, and youre 40 yrs old, (this is common) today you can have a child and feel good about it. Obviously its not the ideal but otoh its certainly not the worst situation is it? But with this "family values" blather, it makes that option pretty much unthinkable. And we all know what happens to women that instead decide to go on the "mommy track" now dont we? How many women millionaires do you all know on the mommy track huh? Sorry but I dont think you guys realize how threatening the right wing stance really is.

To: Rick Slemmer who wrote (1928)	9/9/1998 11:11:00 AM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Rick,.... >>I can't see how anyone can possibly defend Clinton with all we know of his conduct now, unless such defense is simply blind loyalty along party lines.<< Let's see after Lieberman's speech, Clinton himself calls his behaviour indefensible, certainly makes you wonder why such an intellectually bereft stance in stark contrast to the known facts. Keep defending the indefensible......Perhaps some deep seated unresolved psychological issues? Obviously still in denial, perhaps the defenders are identifying with Clinton's predicament? bp