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 (10412)	10/20/1998 6:07:00 PM
From: Volsi Mimir	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Thats the problem with this whole dialogue... theres all these hidden agendas on both sides. That's why I would prefer a moderate from either side than fringe by both. Jack Kemp and Bill Bradley are two that would be palatable. eddyb

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (10412)	10/20/1998 11:53:00 PM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Michelle - I've said this before, but you really need to be in touch with more successful women - including women that you live in fear of, those of the Republican persuasion that are hardly the stereotypical barefoot and pregnant type you keep claiming are the supposed "objective" of the Republicans. It's aging rhetoric that has little parallel to reality. Try putting that spin on the likes of Libby Dole. It's stereotypical liberal-spin nonsense to say the Republicans want women in a subservient, let alone powerless, role. Works well on the uneducated who live in fear, but you are hardly in that category, so I suspect another more sophisticated political agenda. I know and work with women who meet the challenges of family and career, and I also know that many of the successful are equal partners in the "family" effort with their husbands. I still think what you're really afraid of is a that you might discover there are women, with husbands, with children and careers, that have somehow miraculously managed to find a way to succeed in spite of the supposed baggage of (dare I say it?) "family values." It is apparently far enough beyond your personal experience that it must be some kind of hateful, imaginary product of an organized religion to suggest that it is not only possible, but that it happens routinely in daily life. As far as the "rights [sic] objective regarding this Clinton situation - backlash against feminism perhaps? A way to make the feminists look bad?" It isn't hard at all to make them look hypocritical. The objective, though, IMO, is to point out how far down the slippery slope of moral relativism Clinton has been able to lead us by the propaganda of "truth" being relative to a cause. Mr. K.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (10412)	10/21/1998 4:07:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

>This that I mention here is my hidden agenda - I support Clinton because I am afraid of the right wing.< Yawn. "I'm afraid of the Republicans, and you should be too! They're mean and evil and want to destroy the environment and make your grandmother eat dogfood!" >I just cant bare [sic] the thought of not being self sufficient financially can you? Thats what the RR wants to do to women I think...< Try real hard, and think of one policy which would destroy your ability to be self-sufficient. Don't bother citing the desire of pro-life Republicans to help a fetus survive your womb, because you could work while pregnant, then take a three weeks of vacation in the weeks prior to the birth of the baby, after which the baby would be given over to loving adoptive parents. Any other ways you can think of that the Republicans are seeking to destroy your ability to be self-sufficient? Perhaps they are denying you the right to birth-control? Come on, think! I know you can come up with something, a clever woman like you.