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: Emec who wrote (3624)	9/11/1998 10:54:00 PM
From: MeDroogies	Respond to of 15094

Umm...you know what a conspiracy is, don't you? The last refuge of apologists. There is no conspiracy. Hillary's comments of the past are now clearly idiotic. The conspiracy (such as it exists) came from the White House. Tripp's actions, legal or otherwise, are fully accounted for now. There is no smoking gun. Keep looking. Her actions, as juvenile as they were, are (in a most unfortunate way, since the ends don't always justify the means) now justified. Remember one thing. If Clinton were a Republican, he would have been hung out to dry by the media AND the Democrats. As it stands, the vast majority of Republicans have remained silent, and the media is apologizing around the clock for this creep. While Reagan himself deserved to be brought up on charges, special prosecutors have had more convictions within the Clinton Administration than they have had under any other prior (save Nixon's, though technically the special prosecutor's office didn't exist until after his administration). What I like is the irony of it all. The Democrats create the special prosecutor because they lost the Presidency, and saw it unlikely that they would reclaim it any time soon. Then when it bites their ass, they vilify it and call it irrelevant. Typical sloppy thought on the part of the Dems. One last thing. Remember, we now have a trend here. Clinton has shown that he will obstruct justice in a simple civil case. Let's go take a look at the pending criminal cases now....can't imagine that he wouldn't take a similar tack.

To: Emec who wrote (3624)	9/11/1998 11:06:00 PM
From: MeDroogies	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15094

Oh yeah, the speech. The same 70% of the people who still think this is about sex. Sorry, it isn't about sex. It may have started with a sexual liaison, but after that, it became perjury and obstruction of justice. Let's remember that Paula Jones' case was dismissed after several major pieces of evidence in her favor were declared inadmissable (speaking of conspiracies.....and no, I don't believe in them). Let's remember that the initial perjury occurred in that case. Let's remember that Clinton NEVER had an affair with Gennifer Flowers...then he did. Then he NEVER had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky...then he did. He wasn't sorry, either...until he got caught. Then he was sorry to the nation and his wife and family. I, for one, believe he owes a young, naive intern an apology (sure, she was looking for the spotlight, but Clinton should've had better judgement). Finally, I don't believe that judgement in personal matters necessarily indicate what one's business judgement is like. However, if one shows a certain prediliction for bad judgement in his/her personal life, it is HIGHLY LIKELY that this bad judgement occurs in other aspects of their life. It's called a character flaw.