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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (7780)	10/7/1998 7:52:00 PM
From: Who, me?	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Michelle, do you ever stop and think about what you're saying? You are so judgmental of others!!! << who coincidentally had a negative appearance>> What a mean, discriminating thing to say!! I decided to take a look at your profile and website!!! What if others think your picture is a "negative appearance"? << his wife is a complete bumbling IDIOT - obvously in her late 40s and giggling on her interview like a real mental lightweight, to me it did not appear that Mr. and Mrs. Rutherford Institute were intellectual equals. Why would he marry someone like that? Because he is afraid of power or intelligence in women thats why>> Well, as I recall, she was a blond, just like you, and she's in her 40's, just like you, and she giggled, just like you, and she was a mental lightweight....just like you? If you don't like the Rutherford Institute, stay away from them. Personally, you've inspired me to write them a check! Keep up the good work! The Whiteheads probably appreciate it!

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (7780)	10/7/1998 8:28:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

<<.... I wonder how many of them are women?>> The two that I saw were both women. BTW, I agree to a large degree with your take on why BC does what he does. The problem is that he has such high visibility that he can't afford to make a mistake and approach an unwilling woman. Unfortunately, he is also not in a position to spend time meeting "eligible" women and getting to know them. That has left him open to having to attack the credibility of various women that were apparently not willing, and possibly trying to buy their silence. As far as Ellison or others are concerned - the President is held to a different standard. A simple example - Barney Frank - I doubt the American public would have tolerated his sexual orientation in a President, let alone the scandal regarding the brothel being run by his lover. Or how about Alcee Hastings, the Democrat from Florida that was impeached from the federal bench for accepting bribes, but later elected to the House. Then there's Marion Barry - can you imagine a President that had been caught on tape doing cocaine? I happen to have listed Democrats here, but there are probably plenty of examples on the Republican side as well. All the talk of hypocrisy, etc. is really a little misleading because of this. There really is a different standard, because actions of each member of the House or Senate is tempered by the actions of the other members. There is only one President, and he is responsible for all activities done in the name of the Executive Branch.