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: Bill who wrote (5429)	9/26/1998 3:48:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

But I've read and quoted your original post a number of times, oh preacher of non-partisan love and fellowship. The Bush and Thomas issues are past and not directly comparable because there was no allegation of perjury or obstruction of justice, as the IC has referred about Clinton. Now "no allegation of perjury or obstruction of justice" means, precisely, Read My Lips, No Impeachment Referral! Am I suffering from irony impairment again? Is this some kind of retro George Bush humor I'm missing? Now "allegation" means, precisely, "impeachment referral"? And you accuse Clinton of legalistic hair splitting? Oh well, as Reagan said, facts are stupid things. And to paraphrase Forrest Gump, stupid is as stupid does. As far as partisan hatred and all that, I think your original post has something to say on that too. That's just my type speaking, though. If my type includes such honorable men as that notorious "stooge of Jim Wright and Tip O'Niell", Lawrence Walsh, I'll wear that badge with pride. Oh, and I also have to note, in passing: In case you haven't noticed, I am not a Ken Starr fan. I'm disappointed in his referral. Right. You really sound disappointed about the whole thing. That doesn't mean I can let you and your ilk get away with spewing your venom on Gingrich, Bush, Reagan or whomever without proper factual basis. Oh. I forgot to tell you of my role as sometimes leader of the nefarious international ilk conspiracy, but that's in another context. Needless to say, ad hominem attacks are nothing new to me. Anyway, it seems there's been a whole lot of venom spewed on the allegedly evil Bill Clinton without much factual basis. What ever happened to Whitewater anyway? And who killed Vince Foster? Lot of "factual basis" Starr dug up on that one. Maybe you should stick to issues and facts instead of attacking politicians you disagree with as somehow evil. Ahem. Who, in particular, did I ever call evil? As far as "attacking politicians" i.e. pointing out certain issues and facts which you somehow deem immaterial and irrelevant, how does that compare to calling the rather professional and nonpolitical Lawrence Walsh a "stooge of Jim Wright and Tip O'Niell(sic)"? As opposed to the entirely nonpartisan, totally objective Ken Starr, I presume. As to Walsh, A partisan 7 year witch hunt that led to NOTHING. That's a funny one. I'd say a quiet and thorough investigation that led to George Bush issuing a bunch of post-election pardons to finally kill the matter. You want to call that "NOTHING", I guess that's in keeping with your definition of "allegation"=="Impeachment referral". But you're disappointed in Starr's impeachment referral, so I don't quite understand that one either. Facts are stupid things, and the nice thing about them is there's so many to pick and chose from. I'm not too wild about your particular choices, but that's life. I realize fully how objective and rational you are, as opposed to my personal partisan hatred. The whole thing seems quite postmodern to me. Cheers, Dan.