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 (34559)	2/19/1999 9:07:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Mainly that they aren't as hairy-legged obnoxious as you. JLA

To: lorrie coey who wrote (34559)	2/19/1999 9:13:00 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

<<The argument failed to persuade Mr. Clinton, who, she says, got her onto the bed, held her down forcibly and bit her lips. The sexual entry itself was not without some pain, she recalls, because of her stiffness and resistance. When it was over, she says, he looked down at her and said not to worry, he was sterile--he had had mumps when he was a child. "As though that was the thing on my mind--I wasn't thinking about pregnancy, or about anything," she says. "I felt paralyzed and was starting to cry." As he got to the door, she remembers, he turned. "This is the part that always stays in my mind--the way he put on his sunglasses. Then he looked at me and said, 'You better put some ice on that.' And then he left.">> "This is the part that always stays in my mind--the way he put on his sunglasses. Then he looked at me and said, 'You better put some ice on that.' And then he left.">> Cute eh?

To: lorrie coey who wrote (34559)	2/21/1999 1:14:00 AM
From: one_less	Respond to of 67261

<<Oh really?!! What do they adore most about "women"...?>> I need first to set parameters for my answer to your question. Why? I have found in the past that what appeared to be a straightforward question from you, was in fact a set up. First let me clarify that I see human beings and my associations with them differently than you do (at least as previous posts would demonstrate). You see human beings as a utility. To you they can be entertainment, a matter of curiosity, and a resource to a personal increase. To me, human beings are a responsibility. You object if I include a reference to "my" daughters or "my" wife in any example. The referent word "my" drives you to the edge of frenzy. Of course it would, because to you this indicates I am using them for self-gratifying purposes. My responsibility for my daughters has been: As infants I fed them, as toddlers I restrained them from the hot stove, as children I guided their development, as youth I offered encouragement. I am perfectly comfortable with the term "my" as a referent to "my" daughters because it represents our bonds and my responsibility in that. When I refer to my adoration of women, of course I am not including women with a nasty disposition toward other members of their society. I am including those that struggle to live a clean and decent life. I cherish the memory of those who I've been fortunate enough to meet or know on a personal level. I find repose in them, and between us is affection and mercy. In a society where this is a standard, everyone is responsible for the protection and maintenance of others. That doesn't mean anyone is intellectually or spiritually superior. It does, however afford dignity, respect, and protection in all aspects and all stages of life from birth until death in addition to the recognition, the balance, and means for the fulfillment of all spiritual, intellectual, physical, and emotional needs. It is the woman that is woven into the fabric of a balanced society that I adore. I don't say that to challenge you or to cast an insult to your independent lifestyle. I am merely attempting to answer what I would hope was a straightforward question.