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: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (5865)	9/28/1998 3:41:00 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I'm not necessarily calling upon you to justify yourself. Yes, you are, Dwight. You make assumptions about what you think other people's views are, and then sneer at them for holding the views you have just attributed to them. Please stop doing that. I am a conservative, fundamentalist Christian, and so have been singled out for particular abuse. I see a chicken and egg situation here, Dwight. Are you singled out for particular abuse, or do you single out others (e.g., people you have labelled as "liberals," "feminists," "Democrats," etc., etc.)for particular abuse? Seems to me you are always after the scalp of somebody or other. And frankly, I'm tired of all the childish sniping that goes on here. (You're a @#$%^$@!! And you're a *(^%$###! And so's your mother! Nyah, nyah, nyah, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum.) jbe

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (5865)	9/28/1998 4:46:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

I'm not necessarily calling upon you to justify yourself. But I call upon you to justify yourself, oh good Christian Dwight. But it is interesting to me that I have found more than a few Clinton supporters (and Pro-choicers, by some odd coincidence) who disclaim any prior support of Anita Hill and her case against Thomas. Anita Hill was a somewhat reluctant witness, as you probably choose not to recall. And she was hounded out of her tenured faculty position by good right-wing Christians like yourself. As was the law school dean who, with delusions of protecting academic freedom, backed her up. And, of course, there were collaborating witnesses that weren't heard on the harassment matter. But regardless, the Thomas nomination should have been fought on his own manifest lack of qualification. Then there's the little matter of perjury there, and not on the Anita Hill matter. Thomas never, ever gave a thought to Roe v. Wade. Never! He said that under oath! A good conservative, well qualified candidate like that, and it had never crossed his mind! I wouldn't actually blame him for that one personally, his testimony was so heavily managed by the honorable Bush team. But, it was under oath. Perhaps that's the kind of lying under oath a good Christian like yourself approves of, eh Dwight? All in a good cause, now Thomas, "the best man for the job", gets to give Scalia a second vote for the next 40 years.