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: mrknowitall who wrote (13050)	11/5/1998 11:28:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Mr. K., you are again the master of cheesy high school debate tactics. The normal passing on and cheering for whatever's been leaked to Drudge of late is sane debate, and remembering what people posted in the past is snide innuendo. It's how you avoid dealing with core issues like character, morals, truth, honor, etc., because there is no defense for the liar Clinton on those. Let's talk about your character for a minute, Mr. K., since you seem so happy to talk about mine. Like with that other guy, I remember my initial interchange with you quite well. From my first post to you, Message 5781455 It's hard to defend Clinton, he's an embarrassment. But this has been a partisan witchhunt from the start. From the moment Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth went to see the judge they had gotten appointed and told him who they wanted for special prosecutor. If somebody gives me some indication of politicians of any stripe taking this "I swear to tell the truth" business seriously, I'll start taking this particular instance of "perjury" seriously. If this is a high crime, we may as well abolish the office. I'd say Bill Clinton was justified in considering the whole thing political, and acting accordingly. You find me an honest voice on the other side, I'll reconsider. More or less what you start with in your current ad hominem. Not good enough for you, though. Your usual cheesy debate tricks response: Dan, "You find me an honest voice on the other side, I'll reconsider." You smear too much with that broad a brush - I personally resent the generalization you're making that all of the opposition is cut of the same cloth as Mr. Clinton. To me, that's as fundamentally repugnant as saying all Germans were Nazis or that all white people are racists. It is a weak point from which to engage in a substantive debate. I make a fairly cynical statement and ask for an honest pro-impeachment voice. You come back with some Nazi reference, always a hallmark of sane debate. Then, we're off to the races. I also note with pleasure that Lauch Faircloth won't be in the Senate come January. I guess people just didn't appreciate what an honest voice he was on the matter. And too bad about the ethical Alphonse D'Amato, who at some point was sitting in judgement of Clinton's ethics. Republicans do show a sense of humor at times, making D'Amato head of the ethics committee. I did eventually find my honest voice, of course, no help to you Clinton hating truth seekers. "I thought from day one, as I think today, that this was bad for the country," said one of Starr's defenders who now questions his tactics. "Sometimes you have to exercise prosecutorial discretion." Even though this defender of Starr said he believed the president was guilty of significant misconduct, he said, "the cost to the country far outweighs the value of proving it." (from nytimes.com; I agree with that voice. I've criticized Clinton here and in that forum, even in the message you responded to. Unless you consider "It's hard to defend Clinton, he's an embarrassment." to be complimentary. But all Starr has is BJgate. I see you didn't care to take on my little post about Starr's investigation of Kathleen Willey, and the usual collateral damage there. You keep flogging the idea that all the past charges and innuendo are going to suddenly bloom into new impeachable offenses. I think you're in denial from the election. And as for whining, I've been attacked plenty in the old resign forum and here, right from the start. I didn't go ballistic on the matter till the estimable Mr. Vaugh took to threatening reprisals when I called him a liar, for making an obvious lie. Then he comes back with drivel about what a nice guy he is, and he hates to stoop to my level. You guys have no shame, that's for sure. You may respond with the usual "leftist ad hominem ad nauseum", as you see fit. Sort of seems you guys can dish it out, but you can't take it. It's so much easier to preach hatred of Clinton than to abuse somebody who's willing to abuse right back. Not something I'm proud of, but given the general cheerleading for every bit of drivel from Drudge that goes on here, it doesn't exactly lower the tenor of this august forum, either. Substantive debate, indeed. I've seen a lot of that around here. Want to count url's, Mr. K? Compare quality of information posted? Drudge versus NYT? Drudge rules, of course.