Uh, thank you, I guess. Nothing personal. In terms of "how I've treated people on this thread", it's mostly blowback from trying to live with those proud of the "ad hominem ad nauseum" style. Some take great pride in that style, I consider it childish and am not proud about adopting it. It's more fun than just taking continual derision, though. In view of the continual venom pumped out against Bill Clinton in the past 6 years, it's one of those things I feel a little strange being apologetic about. It's all how you look at things, I guess. If you can manage the subtle shades of reason between hating Clinton and despising him, or the ludicrous nature of comparing government libel suits against the political opposition in Singapore to the Paula Jones saga, versus the sane and reasonable attitude that Clinton is like Capone, and the ideological zeal of those dedicated to taking him out by any means available is understandable, then I can see why you'd find me offensive.
Anyway, most of the country wants to move on, not just me. There seems to be considerable sentiment for that path by Republicans in Congress, even, though I'm sure it's not universal. I have no idea what you think, you can hang out here or move on yourself. I certainly wouldn't put you in the class of the primary hounds of politics as a blood sport here, you're welcome to join Neocon in presenting a relatively moderate voice. Me, I'll just go back to reading the "liberal" NYT. You should check out the Rosenthal op-ed today for a "biased" view on Clinton from the NYT inner circle. |
