Yeah, yeah. Corruptly this, corruptly that. Clinton corruptly failed to cooperate with the Grand Inquisitor Starr. Big deal.
As for your "rational debate" pompous remark, boo hoo. I've attempted to debate the Clinton haters far too many times in the past. It's completely and totally pointless. Speaking of know-it-all, would you please explain the "rationality" of this remark?
At least I (with small exceptions) have the skill and pride to use my own words. You will notice that, while I have occasionally thrown in a pertinent quote here and there, I have never resorted to reprinting someone else's words.
Implying, I guess, that you know more about the law and can write better than Anthony Lewis. I got my doubts about your skills, Bob, but I'd agree you've got plenty of pride. In fact, I think you're a pompous ass, Bob. Anthony Lewis is a professional and respected journalist. I thought what he said in that column was very much on point, and I thought he said it well. Why should I paraphrase an informed and well written piece like that? To defend myself from silly ad hominem attacks from loons like you? As far as pride goes, I think it's ridiculously pompous to think you can state something better than a profession writer. Or are you a professional writer, Bob? As far as "My behavior" I'll give you a few choice quotes from when I first started "debating" the sanctimonious moralizers and know-it-all right wingers. In response to the generally cynical post:
It's hard to defend Clinton, he's an embarrassment. But this has been a partisan witchhunt from the start. From the moment Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth went to see the judge they had gotten appointed and told him who they wanted for special prosecutor. If somebody gives me some indication of politicians of any stripe taking this "I swear to tell the truth" business seriously, I'll start taking this particular instance of "perjury" seriously. If this is a high crime, we may as well abolish the office. I'd say Bill Clinton was justified in considering the whole thing political, and acting accordingly. You find me an honest voice on the other side, I'll reconsider.
I got:
You smear too much with that broad a brush - I personally resent the generalization you're making that all of the opposition is cut of the same cloth as Mr. Clinton.
To me, that's as fundamentally repugnant as saying all Germans were Nazis or that all white people are racists.
It is a weak point from which to engage in a substantive debate. (http://www2.techstocks.com/~wsapi/investor/reply-5788993)
Is "rational debate" like "substantive debate"? If so, you can look up the dreaded K and have a "substantive, rational debate" with him, usually bringing in the Nazis is considered bad form.
Then, in response to
Sure, Bill, you, Newt, and the "Rush Speaks the TRUTH" crowd are the professional truth seekers here. Newt has always been the model of non-partisanship, just like the inquisitor Ken Starr. I'm engaging in smear tactics, but Ken Starr's "secret" grand jury proceedings was a quest for "TRUTH". Never mind that the 4 year Whitewater boondoggle turned up nothing on Whitewater.
As I said, Mr. Know-it-all, who's totally gone off the wall against me now, at least at one point acknowledged there's politics on both sides. That is apparently beyond your extremely limited mental capacities. So go back to getting your version of the TRUTH from Newt and Rush, and enjoy your smug moral superiority amongst the fine, non-partisan fellows leading our Christian Nation forward here.
I got:
Dan, I've really tried to refrain from sinking to your idiot level. But you are one of the stupidest posters I have ever encountered on SI. Many idiots try to entertain with their unwitting quips. Not you. You have one rant, a moronic mantra that refuses to discuss a single issue without throwing insult and flames into a perfectly legitimate conversation. Your fascination with Newt and Rush is abnormal, leading one to believe that you must dream about them.
You are a sorry clown, teeming with hate and ignorance. (http://www2.techstocks.com/~wsapi/investor/reply-5799239)
You know, I am sort of dumb, I just took this as the kind of crap you have to put up with in the political forums here. It took me a while to figure out how ironic it was to be call "teeming with hate" by one of the numerous professional Clinton haters around here. I wish you would join the esteemed Bill Vaughn in getting on with your own hateful life, Bob. You want to make earnest lectures, fine, but I don't see much point in anything beyond ridicule in response. You don't like my "behaviour"? You don't like the depths to which I stoop? I think you're a professional Clinton hater too, and what the point of trying to debate the loons who want Clinton gone, whatever the cost, is beyond me entirely. You want the Republican party to go down trying? Fine with me. |
