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: lorrie coey who wrote (26345)	1/7/1999 10:13:00 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<He is fighting for the right to enjoy a private intimate life. There are others who will be exposed as having done the same...they just haven't had to go into absurd detail about their extra-marrital affairs...yet.>> You've got a point. In fact this is the point that most if not all clinton supporters stand on. The thing is, he was given that license when it became known during his first campaign that he was quite active with extra marital affairs. And you have another point in that for a segment and it may be a huge segment of Americans. When they are exposed and they are on the other side are you going to be hypocritical like dipy and want them to suffer for it? Conspiracy...yeah ok, if you mean in the sense that Dan Schuh calls it just politics. Political parties do conspire. I, however, have never voted republican. So, I don't think I qualify as one of the conspirators. Now what we don't agree on is "the issue." The issue for you is "its just about bc's private sex life." Any thing else that we find as a fault in his handling of public life you believe should be filtered through that statement. The issue for me is "I no longer trust bc." I believe that my support of my political representatives is underwritten by trust. When that is breached their authority to represent me is no longer in tact. Conspiracy...I'd like to see the folks in the White House mail room mutiny and throw the bumb out due to his unfitness to serve as their commander and chief. The other thing we don't agree on is that when you identify a societal problem you love to go on a male bashing tirade. <<Challenged by whom...male interlopers seeking to establish dominance? Are we back to Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom?? I've seen the answer... and it's "yes".>> Hmmmm...true for some people and what about the women calling their male partners dogs when they catch them in infidelity etc etc etc. If you choose to only consider "male" man beings who operate on the most base animal impulses in your perspective of the human condition so be it. As far as I can see, in the animal kingdom there are not examples of kindness, consideration, charity, and compassion. So,I think I understand your perspective. There are examples of symbiosis but only to the extent that survival of the individuals is enhanced.

To: lorrie coey who wrote (26345)	1/7/1999 10:27:00 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<"...if Monica Lewinski had ever claimed to have been harassed, abused or mistreated in any way, I would be LIVIDLY ONBOARD the impeachment-removal TRAIN>> Well she didn't lorrie, so that's a safe statement. You didn't say any thing about proof. You said if she claimed it. That is interesting. There is now a spin on her that she can't be believed. Since bc is saying he didn't put his hand where she said he did etc. On the other hand other women have claimed he mistreated them and I notice you choose to ignore or dismiss them as liars.