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 : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (84384)	12/9/1998 3:10:00 PM
From: Fangorn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

OT, CTC, You have a very selective memory.

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (84384)	12/9/1998 3:15:00 PM
From: Murrey Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 176387

To ALL. OT OT OT OT Why don't we bring out another impossible issue to discuss – abortion, and add some more nonsense to this thread? C'mon, lets get back on topic! Puleaseeee?

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (84384)	12/9/1998 3:44:00 PM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

~OT~ Chuzz, to reduce this whole thing to just lying about sex is wrong, too. I hate to get tied up in these discussions on this thread, but I can't let that one go unanswered. The evidence appears to be there that the Prez not only perjured himself, but that he suborned perjury, as well. Is this any way for the chief law enforcement officer of the U. S. to act? If the Paula Jones case is without merit, why did they settle it, and why did he lie in his testimony in that suit? Apparently the President scoffed at William Weld's suggestion today that he be censured (and action for which there is no constitutional power given to Congress), and be fined by Congress, to boot. He's willing to settle the Jones case and not accept the slap on the hands of censure and a fine??? Don't you find it interesting that in all of these scandals- Watergate, Iran-Contra, Whitewater (et al)- that some people have been convicted of crimes related to these "non offenses", when all-the-while the apologists for both sides, respectively, said that it was just this or just that whenever it suited their case? I'm really disgusted by the hypocrisy and selective memory on both sides. Nevertheless, I would not expect anything other than the fair and just application of constitutional law, regardless of who the offender is. Regards, LoD

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (84384)	12/9/1998 4:18:00 PM
From: rdwng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

OTOT RE: One other thing for you to consider. When the House Judiciary Committee met to consider drawing up a articles of impeachment on the Watergate issue they specifically excluded charges relating to Richard Nixon's blatant attempt at tax evasion (a felony) because the Democrats on the committee argued that that was personal behavior and did not rise to the level of abusing the office of the President. I won't get into opinion. This is not the place, but I must correct Misstatements. The reason the Democrats left tax evasion off was NOT personal behaviorbut rather that the evidence was not strong enough. Additionally, in fact Democrats on that committee, three who on in this one voted to INCLUDE tax evasion even if it was personal but it was left off due to not enough votes. Interesting when the sides of the aisle are changed!