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: Ish who wrote (12539)	11/3/1998 11:49:00 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I haven't voted yet. Will do so on the way home tonight. I'm going straight Republican ticket except for one Democrat. I'm voting for the incumbent democrat State Auditor. How about you.

To: Ish who wrote (12539)	11/3/1998 12:03:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Whining, Bill? You'd have to be the expert on that one. Big Bad Bill, who can dish it out, but can't take it. If you start down that path of direct name calling, it will have a bad ending my friend. What bad ending was that you were referring to, Bill? You're going to call my mommy? And as to the "direct name calling" thing, that I allegedly started, maybe we could go back a little further. 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. Put partisanship aside, Bill. That's a nice line for somebody who calls everybody who disagrees with his politics an idiot. A very non-partisan stance, that. Clinton hatred knows no bounds here, and I'm spewing partisan hatred. Moving on in that little historical interchange, we had: What is your problem with Newt? Hasn't he been fair on this issue? (Specifics please, no unsubstantiated bashing.) To which I responded with an article from a source usually considered more reputable than local favorite Drudge, in www2.techstocks.com . A choice quote from that source: At a closed meeting of House Republicans on Wednesday, Rep. Nancy Johnson of Connecticut expressed concern about the release of sexually explicit portions of the videotape of the president's grand jury testimony. Gingrich -- angry, according to some who were there, or merely firm, according to others -- rose to his feet and declared that the House had already voted to make the material public and that Republicans were not going to back down in the face of complaints from the White House and Democrats in Congress. Gingrich called the president a "misogynist," a person who hates women. (from nytimes.com And of course, Newt's professional and non-partisan handling of that little episode was the start of that other Bill's comeback. But that particular bit of "substance" wasn't to this Bill's taste. The response I got was www2.techstocks.com : Yes, you are a partisan hater. Gingrich is running a professional non partisan inquiry, standing on the floor of the house shutting up Congressmen who want to rant about Clinton's misdeeds, and you produce an article with a bunch of unsubstantiated Gingrich bashing. Get on with your hateful life. Would that count as "direct name calling", Bill? Oh, I forget, I started the "direct name calling" thing, right, Bill? Sorry I got caught up in your personal level of "substantive debate".