Dan B., you yourself haven't based your claim that my so-called "silliness notion" is biased on any facts whatsoever. If you're going to be this inarticulate, please don't post at all.
For example, what do you mean by the following statement about my analysis?:
Instead, you've ignored any honest attempt to evaluate the facts. You are full of Starry-eyed talk as though he is YOUR savior
Nobody involved in this whole impeachment/trial mess is my hero or savior, and if anybody were my hero it wouldn't be Ken Starr. Starr is fundamentally a repressed Church of Christ boy who is getting his jollies hassling President Clinton for sexual impropriety (and yes, lying about that impropriety). Starr couldn't find evidence against Clinton in Whitewater, Filegate, or any other so-called scandal, so he had to pursue Monicagate. What a loser.
Dan B., you are reading into my words meanings that I never intended, I assure you.
evidenced by your failure to speak to the charges-you add nothing but bias without any rational rhyme nor reason.
Well, excuuuuuuuse me for disagreeing with you. I'm sorry---I didn't realize that my opinions would be considered biased when I posted on a Silicon Investor thread that was begun with the intention of bashing Clinton and endlessly harping on his and his people's alleged corruption.
If you think my opinions are biased, just hit the "Next" button and move on. After all, it's a free country. My opinions are pretty typical of the majority of Americans (according to some polls) who want the Republicans to end the impeachment/trial now.
Joel Irby
Austin, Texas |
