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: pezz who wrote (7534)	10/6/1998 3:59:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<Perhaps there is just a teeny weeny fraction of us that disagree with you that are honest debaters>> Without quoting the rest of your diatribe against me - I think the above gets the point across. I believe you seriously misunderstood my post. When I said mostly correct, I meant that what you had said was mostly correct, that for the most part I was assuming that most Clinton support is partisan rhetoric. I was accepting your rebuke, I'm sorry if that's not okay with you. I could always see if Reno has any open spots in her calendar to try me for treason <g>. <<I am sure that you disagree with this post and I suspect that your disagreement is based on an honest opinion.>> I disagree with your post only because it is based on an erroneous assumption. For example, had you read my many posts (and I assume you have merely suffered a small lapse of memory here) you would notice that I don't believe Clinton should be impeached over Monicagate. You would also find that I have been very accepting of opposing viewpoints. <<Is it possible to support BC's agenda and still think that he should stay based on constitutional grounds?>> Yes - however, a recent poll quoted by ABC news said that less than half of the people opposing impeachment do so because they think there is no cause - they oppose it because of what it will do to the country. <<What about dougin's definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" partisan rhetoric or an honest attempt to demonstrate his position?>> I'm not quite sure of what you are getting at here, but if you read above, you will find that I probably agree with Doug's position more than I disagree with it. <<I am surprised that you can't see the arrogance of your position here>> No offense, but I really don't see any arrogance in my position. All I've said is that both sides have taken a stance based on their policy beliefs, not on the actual issues. The overstatement I was apologizing for is in relation to the overgeneralization inherent in my statement. Obviously not everyone on either said is acting from the same set of motives or beliefs. I had already apologized for this, and was attempting to do so directly to you. Why do you feel that your character attack on me in any way helps to bring us together or helps to resolve the issue? <<To bad you can't see fit to afford that respect to most of the rest of us.>> On the contrary - I have always shown respect for the other people's opinions on this board. I obviously greatly disagree with your position, but I hope you can see that this is not due to arrogance on my part, but a misunderstanding on your part, probably resulting from a poorly worded attempt at an apology from me.