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: dougjn who wrote (6024)	9/29/1998 1:01:00 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

That's o.k., doug...It was perfectly obvious that you had been patient for a long time, and then your patience ran out, and you let fly..<g> I too responded to the post that set you off: #reply-5850863 That post belonged to an entirely different insult category, which perhaps we can explore later. jbe

To: dougjn who wrote (6024)	9/29/1998 2:53:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 67261

Dougjn, I suggest that the "over the top" statement by me was indeed meant to inflame, but I also suggest that the escalation wasn't entirely one-sided. Here is the sequence of inflammatory comments: you: Message 5850422 which said in part: >>"Wrong. He was trying through his (permissibly) misleading answers"<<< For you to suggest that Judge Susan W-W gave Clinton "permission" to deceive the court, I thought was an inflammatory statement, and in insult to our system of Justice. Surely no Judge has ever given someone permission to lie under oath. Deceive, mislead, lie. It's all contrary to the oath to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So I responded as follows: Message 5850699 which said in part: >>"dougjn, you are a laughingstock if you have sucked up Clinton's rationalizations for lying in the Jones harassment lawsuit...Where is your brain! Can't you see that a Jones conviction would have been an embarrassment to the Clinton regime, and that was the only reason he lied his silly ass off??? Your insistence on approving of perjury is troubling, and doubly so when it is our nation's leader who we are talking about. Sorry, but your view speaks only of hardcore partisanship. Are you sure you don't work for the DNC?"<< You responded with this: Message 5850789 which said in part: >>"Snoore. Tedious. I'm a political independent, who has voted for Reagan and Bush (once each), as well as Clinton twice... I'm a Christian by birth, christening and confirmation, but have a strong tendency to distrust, and in fact to dislike, fundamentalists of any religion,....<< Okay, so I've said many times before I am a fundamentalist Christian, meaning I believe the entire Bible is the inspired Word of God. So naturally I felt insulted. So I responded with this, Message 5850809 which said in part: >>"Sorry, but secular humanism is a contradiction to Christian beliefs, so believe what you will about yourself, but in no way are you both a "secular humanist as much as you are a Christian". More than anything, you sound confused about ethics, and the importance of such in a civilized society. OTOH, you may have had a rousing political career in peak years of the Roman Empire. Maybe you too could have appointed your horse to be a Senator.<< ------ At which point, you launched on me. No, it didn't bother me, because I was to the point where I was mad, and trying to get you mad, too. It worked, and I felt better, as I posted in return to you. Frustration has overtook quite a few people on these threads, because politics is always a touchy subject. Have a good day, and I mean that sincerely.