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 : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lorrie coey who wrote (19680)	1/7/1999 8:36:00 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

What a liar! Registered Republican? hah! More like RINO. Republican in Name Only. JLA PS Still waiting for my call. 603 555 1212 Ask for the listing for JLAllen under "Lawyers".

To: lorrie coey who wrote (19680)	1/7/1999 12:42:00 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

I think people who see a difference between "assault" firearms and other types are merely misinformed. There is already a ban on fully automatic firearms. "Hu-MAN beings are practiced at the art and science of killing each other." I'm not sure why you accent the MAN part of human. My daughter kids about my LeatherWOMAN, (a very useful multi-purpose belt tool invented by a man named Leatherman, in case you don't know), but she doesn't believe in rewriting the English language. She has her own LeatherPERSON, thank you very much. "To call scared people "loonies" to me isn't accurate...is it not truely "loonie" to aspire to self-dececration...?" You are right. I should have used the word "zealots" and will from now on. "...just like abortions USED to be." Abortion is not my issue. I think it's dead wrong, but for others to debate. Abortion and killing abortionists are equivalent crimes, in my view. "I think "gun control" is a slightly humorous proposition considering the potential reality that is nuclear anihilation...grab your rifle if you can get to it before it and your eyes melt!" You're right, but it's not a valid comparison. Nuclear events became more likely after the Soviet Union collapsed, not less. For a believable scenario short of annihilation read Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears." It will scare your socks off. "I personally find it more probable that the right wing would be the party to confiscate our firearms...our money, our hard assets, etc. I'm a reg-republican due to my position on gun control, flag burning, military readiness, etc. but the group in the old congress and the Senate are showing me that they have gone too, too far to the RELIGIOUS RIGHT...the land of extremism behind the 8-Ball...where the Socialists and Capitalists collide and out of necessity, merge...Facsism." Every episode of genocide in history was preceded by disarming the people. Hitler's round is merely the most notorious. Pol Pot's regime killed people who wore glasses, on the off chance that they might be educated. It's the same. "Y2K opens the door...we lose the power grid...the riots begin, in come the columbia-blues...in order to institute a kinder, gentler martial law." You're starting to sound like a zealot. "I am unmoved by the Presidents private sexual activities..." I too am unmoved by Clinton's private life. That isn't the point. Let's say (name your favorite) is required to testify in a court of law. Should that person be required to tell the truth? Yes or no. If she doesn't, what then should be the consequences? Let's say Barney Frank's former boyfriend hauls him into palimony court. Should he be required to tell the truth? Yes or no. If he doesn't, what should be the consequences? As the chief law enforcement officer of the land, the President more than any other should be required to uphold the law and tell the truth. Clinton didn't, plain and simple. That his failure manifested in an area that most people try to keep private is simply an embarrassing artifact. "...our Liberty and our Freedom is jeapordized, by a majority run amuck..." Everyone who aspires to high places should realize that what you can do to others can be done to you. I think this process started a long time ago, by zealots of another stripe. "I think that it's a misguided to beleive that Clintons agenda includes, or ever included, assaults on personal Freedom." I don't think Clinton's agenda is an overt assault on personal freedom, but the effect is the same. He suffers severely from narcissism. He doesn't consider the possibility that he might be wrong. He became known as Slick Willy precisely because he can slither out of blind alleys while making it seem someone else is to blame. We simply can't have a person like that in the highest office in the land. We need someone who stands on a foundation of truth and honor, glibness be damned. Bottom line: Clinton doesn't deserve his high office. But he was elected by the people even if they were taken in. I think he should be tried, convicted --- and forgiven. Let him limp out the remainder of his term with the knowledge that he must leave the rest of his agenda for the next millennium to sort out.