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 (9479)	10/14/1998 4:49:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Would you care to point out some of the "hatred" I've allegedly "spewed" on Republicans, my dear rebarbative Bill? As to the "gibberish" in the last sentence, I will try again to surmount your limited verbal comprehension. Futile, I know. "No one can deny he's a lying sack of shit. No one can deny he is a serial felon." That sounds like somewhat hateful language to me, and it was certainly uttered in a partisan spirit, as David M. Anderson proudly admitted. Do you deny this is hateful language? If you deny the above sentence is hateful, would you care to point out anything I've written that would be a better example of hatred? Am I using too many big words for you? As for "nonpartisan" Newt, you're entitled to your opinion. If Mr. Anderson can wear the partisan label proudly, I think it should be good enough for Newt too. Then, we have the "non sequitur" part, where Anderson wrote 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. At which point, I felt it necessary to cite you as an authority on flinging partisanship as an accusation. Is this clear? It seems to follow to me. I'm sure you'll be happy to politely and rationally point out the error in my reasoning, as usual. As for gibberish, maybe you could explain the heinous offense of "Talking about others in third person?". And if I understand this "third person" thing in the Vaughn sense correctly, we get back to That's exactly my conclusion. The guy posts lies as fact and perpetuates other people's posts that don't have anything to do with the topic. Changing the subject and innocuous slurs are specialties of the left. (https://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=5991105) Us dastardly, shameless leftists, engaging in innocuous slur tactics. Totally unlike Ken Starr's tactics, which nonpartisan Newt couldn't wait to dump on everybody, in full lurid detail. Innocuous slurs are obviously another step in the decline of western civilization. Far preferable to keep the topic focused on whatever bizarre accusation anybody can dig up or make up about Bill Clinton. Factual and substantial as usual. Clinton is Caligula, as good Christian Dwight would say. Or maybe you'd like to repeat the substance of your favored public opinion research techniques.