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 (21193)	12/17/1998 2:23:00 PM
From: jbe	Respond to of 67261

Sorry, Michelle, guess I misread you. From the context, it was not entirely clear. :-) jbe

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (21193)	12/17/1998 2:25:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

>>that was my point, I was dissatified with the selections of Thomas and Souter by the prior administrations. ....I thought that the Republicans were choosing bland do-nothing candidates that agreed with them on the abortion issue and that was their entire criterion for whoever they chose for anything - that was my point. Whoops, there goes that theory: Souter is pro-abortion. As is Reagan's first choice, Sandra Day O'Connor.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (21193)	12/17/1998 3:26:00 PM
From: RJC2006	Respond to of 67261

<<<jbe, that was my point, I was dissatified with the selections of Thomas and Souter by the prior administrations. I thought Clinton would make better selections than that....>>> Obviously you're brain dead. Clarence Thomas was nominated by George Bush thus the half-assed Anita Hill fiasco. <<<I thought the process of choosing Reno was a good example of at least who Clinton was likely to select for office (or Supreme Court, whatever).>>> Yeah...what a coincidence. Waco is in Texas. <<<I know there was a brouhaha with that child care issue etc but Zoe Baird and Lani Guinier etc are fairly distinguished it seems to me, >>> Sheesh...yeah...much like Robert Bork. <<<I thought that the Republicans were choosing bland do-nothing candidates that agreed with them on the abortion issue and that was their entire criterion for whoever they chose for anything - that was my point.>>> Well, you've been told over and over that is what you get for thinking.