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: Bill who wrote (9475)	10/14/1998 3:30:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Got a ways to go to get down to your level, Bill. To review this particular chain: Anderson No one can deny he's a lying sack of shit. No one can deny he is a serial felon. Me: Very objective analysis there, David. Serial felon? Because he wasn't totally cooperative with grand inquisitor Starr? How many convictions have there been for perjury in inadmissible testimony in a dismissed civil suit? Should I be waiting for Tom DeLay to send the FBI after me, having also said bad things about Ken Starr? I'm a participant in a conspiracy to obstruct justice! . . . oops, I forget, I'm a partisan hater, and people like you, using such judicious and Christian language as "No one can deny he's a lying sack of shit. No one can deny he is a serial felon.", are the objective, factual, and non-partisan observers. Anderson: Hell yes I'm partisan. As long as there are two or more points of view in the world there is partisanship. Flinging it as an accusation is as stupid as a boy and a girl arguing about who is the opposite sex. me: Perhaps you could tell this to Bill Vaughn. As with most insults, I try to only fling back what's been flung at me. Which is of course where you come in, Bill, in a direct quote. When it comes to impeachment, we should all step back and seriously measure the gravity of the procedure. It takes putting partisanship aside to do this. You have done nothing but spew hate toward republicans, offering no real insight. The Bush and Thomas issues are past and not directly comparable because there was no allegation of perjury or obstruction of justice, as the IC has referred about Clinton. Even if you can't, the Congress will surely stay on topic and most will put aside petty partisan politics. Want to explain again about non-partisan Newt? Where, above, was I the one spewing hatred? Sarcasm==hatred? Some might say language like "No one can deny he's a lying sack of shit. No one can deny he is a serial felon." is indicative of hatred, but you'd be happy to explain the incorrectness of that thought, right? Talking about others in third person? Is that an impeachable offense? Maybe conspiracy to obstruct justice? Or perhaps it's just an "innocuous slur", to quote one who knows the language well.