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: Neocon who wrote (29716)	1/25/1999 1:08:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

The article, planted by people who wanted to bring Clinton down, people who wanted Jones to file suit, with only the vague identification "Paula", stirred up "old feelings". The whole thing stirs up feelings for me, too, feelings I often get when arguing with the Clinton haters here. I would never accuse you guys of being guileless, though.

To: Neocon who wrote (29716)	1/25/1999 2:06:00 PM
From: Jack Be Quick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<B: The trooper was under the impression that she had "done" Clinton>> As I recall, the article in the Am. Spectator reported the trooper remembering that a woman named Paula, after "doing" Clinton, had specifically verbally offered to him to be Clinton's "regular girlfriend". Her complaint in this instance would therefore seem to be with the trooper's account and with whomever was responsible for publishing it (we'll give you 3 guesses here Neocon). However, guileless-emotional-reaction-wise, apparently Bill Clinton, the President of the United States of America, married to Hillary Rodham Clinton, should have immediately called an internationally televised press conference to announce that: however many other Arkansas women named Paula may have "done" him during his time as Governor there, Paula Corbin Jones not only never "did" him but, in addition, having been given an opportunity to visually survey the task of "doing" him, had firmly refused to do so. I do find it a little disconcerting to jump from "he won't vindicate me by admitting that I never did him" to "I have suffered because I was ostracized in the office for not doing him". In the latter case we have to believe that Bill Clinton actually managed to carry out anything (the vindictive campaign to punish PCJ for not "doing" him) in relative secrecy. Like, what are the chances? Of course, he may already have murdered all the potential witnesses, so who knows.