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 : THE STARR REPORT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (738)	9/13/1998 11:57:00 PM
From: Jay8088	Respond to of 1533

But given the proclivity of Bill Clinton, isn't that like shaking a candy in front of a baby's face? The intern must have known what she is doing. Also there is some chance that it could be a signal of some sort. You know, as they say, shake it baby, shake it.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (738)	9/14/1998
From: NickSE	Respond to of 1533

Michelle, Problem is that see was shaking them in the direction of the President during the photo op. and not while jogging. Everyone else in the room was very reserved and awestruck by the scene and here is this girl shaking here bussom (aka chest) in front of the President of the United States. I don't know. Maybe I have it all wrong. Maybe it's normal for women to shake there breasts in front of the world's most powerful leader in the world on camera. This is a phenomenon which can best be explained using the laws of physics - unfortunately I dont have my college textbook handy - so, Ill recite the laymans definition. If you are a woman, and you go running, things move around a lot! Your underwear and bra gets all bunched up - they sell these especially for runners! After you are done running sometimes people just "shake their bussoms for some reason"! (probably to get more comfortable, what is a bussom anyway?) BTW, I find it very strange that the US media has not even addressed this. Fox News aired it Sat. & Sun. and I haven't heard a mention of it anywhere else. Regards, --0--

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (738)	9/14/1998 1:44:00 AM
From: Johnathan C. Doe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1533

I think we need an amendment to the Constitution that adds to the Bill of Rights; something that will not allow courts to ever reveal unrelated facts in a court case that are intended just to damage a person's reputation and nothing else. There needs to be a privacy amendment to the Constitution. This case is a great example of why we need it. The Dem's are all for privacy rights so if you care about this issue; vote Dem. in the upcoming election.