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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Roger's 1998 Short Picks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: McNabb Brothers who wrote (16353)	12/22/1998 3:01:00 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18691

Hank/Roger, re FSTW, do you see today's dip as just tax selling (which I expected anyway) pushing a thinly traded stock around or as reason for caution? TIA, Bob PS: >'Twas The Night Before Impeachment, when all through the House, >All the Congress was stirring, even Conyers, the louse. > >The Articles were hung by the Capitol with care, >In hopes that Saint Bubba would be trapped in the lair. >The Republicans were nestled, all smug with The Feds, >While visions of perjury danced in their heads. > >And Barr with his rhetoric and Hyde with his trap, >Had just settled in for a long evening's nap. > >When out in The Gulf, there arose such a clatter >They clicked on CNN to see what was the matter. >When what to their wondering eyes should appear >But Tomahawk cruise missiles flying like reindeer. >With a Presidential address, so lively and quick, >They knew in a moment, it must be Saint Slick! > >More rapid than eagles, his supporters they came, >And he whistled and shouted and called them by name: >"Now Conyers, now Gephardt, let's forget about The Vixen! On Barney! >On Maxine! I'm no Richard Nixon!!!" > >"From Capitol Hill to the Washington Mall, >Now dash away, dash away, dash away all !!!" >And then the Republicans heard on the roof >The prancing and pawing of each little hoof. >As they scratched their heads and were turning around >The resilient Saint Willie scored another rebound. > >No longer was he eating from his humble pie, >While assaulting Saddam with his bombs from the sky. >A bundle of weapons he had flung at Iraq, >It looked once again like Slick Willie was back. >His eyes, how they twinkled! His dimples, how merry! >His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry. > >His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow, >And the hair on his head was as white as the snow. >The stump of a stogie, he held tight in his teeth, >And the smoke, it encircled his head like a wreath. >He had a broad face and a little round belly >That shook when he laughed like a bowl full of jelly. >He was chubby and plump - a right jolly old elf, >And the Republicans wept, in spite of themselves. >And a wink of his eye and a twist of his head >Soon gave them to know they had something to dread. >He spoke the right words and went straight to his work >Hard to believe that an Intern once called him "The Jerk." >And shaking his finger and thumbing his nose, >By "Wagging The Dog," up the polls he rose. > >He turned to his spinmeisters and gave them a whistle, >Then they cheered-on Slick Willie as he launched another missile. >They all heard him exclaim, with Impeachment out of sight, >"Happy Ramadan to all, and to all a good night."

To: McNabb Brothers who wrote (16353)	12/22/1998 4:09:00 PM
From: BelowTheCrowd	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18691

Hank, If he can be shown to have broken the law, that's one thing. If all he can be shown to have done is something that lots of other guys in power do regularly, then it's really too bad, he's a jerk, but there's no law against that. And incidentally, you should look up the definition of perjury. "Lying under oath" alone doesn't cut it. It must involve: * LYING under oath * About something which is MATERIAL * KNOWING that it was a lie at the time you told it. Bill will claim that: * He wasn't lying, since he didn't consider his relationship with Monica "sex." * He certainly couldn't KNOW he was lying, given that he didn't think it was a lie in the first place. * A consensual relationship with a woman who willingly offered her "services" was not at all material to the Paula Jones case. I think the first two are pretty absurd arguements. The latter is very strong. Most attorneys I know are very surprised that the entire line of questioning wasn't dismissed as irrelevant. Bottom line to me is that he's a jerk and an embarrasement. But doubt he could ever be convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a normal court of law. In fact, doubt a normal prosecutor would bother with the case at all. mg