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 (11570)	10/29/1998 1:01:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Bill, why are you posting the terms of use? You wouldnt be thinking about complaining to the SI police would you? Because if you do complain to the SI police, you realize there is a risk that they will evaluate a number of your own posts, and you will end up implicating yourself! Then, your intended victim will wind up with a mild warning, and YOU will be threatened with termination of your membership if your nemesis ever complains, ever.

To: Bill who wrote (11570)	10/29/1998 9:25:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Having been threatened publicly and privately with the spectre of the SI thought police by Big Bad Bill Vaughn, I had to go collect another file. Unlike my day in the life of JLA file, this one isn't from a random day, and is all directed at me, personally. I'm not sure about what this "Direct name calling" thing that I'm guilty of, and Bill's not. I admit to being abusive on occasion, you take enough hits around here, civility wears thin after a while. Anyway, here we go. I'm sure I'll hear how this is a copyright violation or something, too. <<Oh, I don't know. No slur is too low in this forum, on one side anyway. After all, Hitler was a leftist, and we have no shame, unlike all the good Christians casting stones. Cheers, Dan, with love and kisses to Mr. Bill too. Facts indeed. >> While you're busy pontificating on the conflicts in your troubled life, how about an answer to my question. Where and when did George Bush lie under oath? (Remember that hateful wild ranting accusatory post of yours?) Just wondering. Look, I'm not your shrink. Go rant to someone else. Just tell me when and where George Bush lied under oath, as you have alleged. So, you admit that you invented that stuff about Bush lying under oath. Is that what you're telling me? Are you telling this thread that you are a liar? Or are you telling this thread that you are ignorant? Nice tone. Again, take that to your shrink. What's this "I'll get back to you" stuff? You made a declarative statement and now you have to go back and look it up? Why don't you tell us what you meant by your statement that Bush lied under oath? Was it your lie or your ignorance that produced that bit of mythology? A person with integrity would have admitted he made up the statement, "and George Bush lied under oath." And an apology for being so blindly partisan that you lied to make a point would be in order. But liars beget liars, I guess. And people with no integrity are respected by the same. That explains your hateful existence. Have you no shame? Cease with the endless drivel and equivocating. You have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have lied when you said: "and Bush lied under oath." You can't even point to an instance where Bush was PUT UNDER OATH! Case closed. You lied. Admit it. Where is your integrity? And you complain about people attacking you? Who said this? <<I'm telling you that you're a piece of garbage, as are most of the hate artists around here. I'm also telling you, for the third time, butthead, that I will get back to you shortly, and post information about Bush. Don't pee in your pants while you're waiting. >> Piece of garbage? Hate artist? Butthead? Pee in pants? You did. You're a real piece of work, liar. You lied about Bush lying under oath. You have no shame or integrity to admit it. And thank you for the "apology". As to George Bush lying under oath, I can't prove it. But, given his "out of the loop" public statements, and that Walsh thought he could make a case against Bush, if the co-conspirators hadn't all been pardoned, I'd say the probability is quite high. And I did post a fair amount of reference material on the topic. Including the date of Bush's deposition. Under the Bill Vaughn interpretation of English and logic, that makes me a liar, but to call him a liar for saying, of Clinton, He has never opened his mouth without uttering a lie. Well, that's beyond the pale. That's getting personal. That's DIRECT NAME CALLING. Mr. Vaughn has also informed me, privately, that he never DIRECTLY called me a liar. He did a search. The stuff above was all creative variations or something. Witty, funny, original, all that. I guess it's like Johannes Pilch, where ad hominem arguments are a leftist tactic, except when conservatives use them, against leftists, who are insane by definition.