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: mrknowitall who wrote (5930)	9/28/1998 11:17:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 67261

Oh dear. Cut and paste time, let the people judge what words mean in this context. 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. That was from Message 5781455, my first post in that other forum. You replied: Dan, "You find me an honest voice on the other side, I'll reconsider." 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://www.techstocks.com/~wsapi/investor/s-22775/reply-428) So, you start out with a very selective quote, and move on to a (admittedly mild, especially for this crowd) Nazi reference. My reading is that I didn't say all Republicans were dishonest. I'd say, in context, a reasonable reading of what I said was that nobody speaking out against Clinton is being very honest on the honesty issue. At least among the main speakers I've been reading about, Starr, Newt, Henry Hyde, Tom DeLay. Wouldn't want to confront the accusers, though, would we? That would be unamerican, obstruction of justice and all that. As for "substantive debate", there's a lot of that around here. Currently, as you can see, I've taken to throwing the "Christian values" thing back in the faces of the alleged Christians. Though jbe has explained it somewhat, I'm still a bit confused on this selective reading of the Bible thing, which parts are operative and which aren't. I thought Christianity had something to do with Christ, but everybody seems to prefer the BC parts. Except for jlallen, of course, who'd prefer to go the Rand route on morals. Cheers, Dan.