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: iandiareii who wrote (38999)	3/17/1999 7:00:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 67261

Very funny and not believable for a millisecond. I'm sure you'll find someone out there who'll say that Reagan dodged the draft and smoked pot while protesting the war in England. Clinton has a demonstrated past and his accusers are credible. Stephanopoulos just went on national TV and said that Clinton should not have been elected, that Clinton was unfit to hold the highest office of the land. Clinton won't even deny that most serious charge because he's unbelievable, a notorious liar. Those who know him best believe the worst about him is true. That's why the public believes that Clinton is what he is.

To: iandiareii who wrote (38999)	3/17/1999 8:28:00 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha You people are shameless. JLA

To: iandiareii who wrote (38999)	3/17/1999 8:34:00 AM
From: Les H	Respond to of 67261

She's supposedly working on a Hillary book. She was on GMA last fall.

To: iandiareii who wrote (38999)	3/17/1999 8:38:00 AM
From: JBL	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Ian, you cannot compare the level of evidence in the Broadrick and Walter case. Walter maybe truthfull, but we have absolutely no way to judge her credibility until we hear her story, and until we hear from the people who knew her and/or heard her story at the time. I don't know why I should even have to point this out to you.

To: iandiareii who wrote (38999)	3/17/1999 10:44:00 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I got it now. It's OK for Clinton to rape women because Kitty Kelly says Reagan raped one. You're a credit to your hypocritical liberal roots.

To: iandiareii who wrote (38999)	3/17/1999 4:46:00 PM
From: cody andre	Respond to of 67261

Did you see the interview with Eva Braun ?

To: iandiareii who wrote (38999)	3/18/1999 12:08:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I was trying to figure out what ian was talking about, so I used the URL and found this: Rumor Revenge: The Reagan Bio By David Streitfeld and Donnie Radcliffe Washington Post Staff Writers Monday, April 8, 1991; Page C01 Nancy Reagan titled her memoirs "My Turn." Kitty Kelley's version, which is hitting bookstores today in massive quantities, might as well be called "Their Turn": It's the revenge of former friends and associates who feel they have been badly treated, plus some hazily substantiated gossip and free-floating bits of innuendo. (Even The Washington Post had difficulty taking seriously the trash in the Kelley book... but not ian.)

To: iandiareii who wrote (38999)	3/18/1999 12:12:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 67261

ian, since your e- mail seems to indicate that you missed this, I will repost: ian, I tried to recreate my actions. I had been surfing and posting for a long time, and was somewhat punchy. I checked out the NYT website, but came up empty, then was directed to the Northern Lights search engine. I got numerous search results, and looked at a few things quickly, then found the relevant page. I posted it without looking around the site. When Doe asked, I think I simply got confused, having reviewed so many descriptions in the search results, and gone to a few pages, and replied thinking that I recalled something from the description that would justify my characterization. When later asked what EP designated, I was blank, and returned to poke around the site to find out. To my chagrin, it was a pro- life site, which I immediately posted on the thread. As I said, there was nothing that materially affected my point, which is why I posted the URL for the Gallup site, but not the other. I just thought it was interesting on the point of variable responses depending upon how the questions are framed, and it was a summary of an NYT article that I thought I had seen other references to elsewhere, or might have even read when I used to subscribe to the NYT. I post this follow- up because I couldn't remember why I had the impression it was a pro- choice site, so I tried to figure it out...