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.

Pastimes : Impeachment=" Insult to all Voters" -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steve kammerer who wrote (756)	12/23/1998 4:29:00 PM
From: R. Martenson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2390

That self serving son of a gun...he must be sensing he will lose the impeachment fight, get kicked out of the White House and be homeless since he might also lose his pension. Gee, this guy is slick. But as they say, plan for the future today. Cheers.

To: steve kammerer who wrote (756)	12/23/1998 5:28:00 PM
From: RavenCrazy	Respond to of 2390

PLEASE STOP POSTING INACCURACIES! If you will stop this disinformation, I will go away (which I want to do!) Steve says: >>One day a focus group indicated that people are very concerned about their children. From THAT day every one of Clinton's speeches harped away at the children, over and over. Funny, before the focus group info, you never heard him mentioning the children.<< That is simply not true. In 1992 I was working hard for Senator Paul Tsongas in the primaries. Clinton was, of course, our greatest adversary. I heard Clinton talk about children a lot and MADE A DELIBERATE POINT of suggesting that WE emphasize children more, knowing that children were clearly a great concern to the late Senator but fearing that Clinton was getting all the attention for it. So if you care about truth, how can you say he never mentioned children before? PLEASE, people, stop just pulling information out of a hat! Raven - and yes, you're right about such a small percentage of every welfare dollar getting to the needy (I don't know the exact amount), and we need to do something about it, and I think that we - both parties - are addressing that. But - and I MAY be wrong on this - I don't think the homeless normally collect welfare. I believe welfare recipients are required to have an address. I do NOT know this for a fact, but it is my understanding. I'd appreciate clarification, but PLEASE don't just make up a truckload of it. Raven