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 (16624)	12/2/1998 1:36:00 AM
From: John C James	Respond to of 67261

You are, of course, absolutely right. But this thing long ago ceased to have anything to do with reason or rationality. The rabid republican right wants Clinton gone and the '96 election overturned. They are not very particular about how it gets done. I have an uncle of mine who is one of this group. He says that after they get Clinton (he's that optimistic), they'll go after Gore. We have more than a few representatives of that school on this board. It's disappointing, that with no common reference, there is really nothing to talk about. The only consolation is that so far the Hyde and company have proven inept. John

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (16624)	12/2/1998 8:37:00 AM
From: Short A. Few	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

I understand both your comments on Clinton vs. Packwood and also on a woman's right to say no and be listened too. Regarding the example, I guess I had always fantisized that justice was blind (notice the blindfold on lady justice). Let's take another example. Gary Hart dared the press to follow him and when they did the result was the end of his career as I recall, even though the femme was perfectly receptive. Clinton also dared us to uncover his "skills", but when we did, insisted these activities are within his rights as prez and commander in chief (while at the same time, firing and jailing subordinates in the military and other areas of public service for virtually identical behavior). Clinton has proven again and again that he does not consider moral leadership a part of his job. But I have always expected that of the president. Matter of fact, I thought it was one of the biggest requirements of the office. Do you expect moral leadership from that office? If not, maybe I am all wet. But I guess we all new in advance that we weren't going to receive moral leadership from Bill? Thanks for your provocative comments, Short

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (16624)	12/2/1998 8:53:00 AM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 67261

Michelle, res- <<<Short a few, you arent the first person to bring up Packwood in this debate about Clinton. I find this comparison rather interesting... its as if men dont understand the basic rules of order regarding desirable people vs undesirable people. Say some woman that you found undesirable was pursuing you, and they wouldnt quit... you probably wouldnt like it. But what if that woman looked like Michelle Pheiffer - then how would you feel? Say you took both of these cases to court - do you think the jury would rule exactly the same in both cases? No way! Theyd probably throw the Michelle Pheiffer case out.>>> I would consider sending my pants to the cleaners after thinking about your hunk for so long. :-) New code of ethics for the the new 90's. If you look good, you can break any law and sexually harass any woman. Gee, the NOW gang might be surprised at this new development. This could also add a new twist to sexual harassment training! :-) Michael