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: Machaon who wrote (8386)	10/9/1998 9:06:00 AM
From: Ray Emery	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

After perusing the past 150 posts or so, I remember why I left this thread months ago. For all the give and take I can't see one person who has changed their mind one way or the other. What a waste of time. May the Rule of Law prevail. Ray

To: Machaon who wrote (8386)	10/9/1998 9:39:00 AM
From: Who, me?	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Robert, first you said: <<The easiest arguments to counter are those that are filled with childish insults and nastiness, mostly because they defeat themselves by their own words.>> Then you said: <<Yes, but...... when the "bashing", based on factual info, goes completely unchallenged, it adds credibility that the bashing is actually a legitimate assessment of the truth.>> So, what are you saying here? It's okay for you to bash those that disagree with you but it's not okay for the ones you're bashing to defend themselves? I thought that was the whole case the Clintonistas are making for the President, that he should have the opportunity to defend himself. Is there something in the Constitution that says people of faith do not have the right to vote or be involved in the democratic process of our political arena?