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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (18014)	12/10/1998 1:34:00 AM
From: sea_biscuit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

Larry Flynt of "Hustler" magazine was on "Politically Incorrect" last night. He was talking about the responses to his magazine ad asking women who had sexual affairs with politicians to come forward with evidence of their relationships. A few salient points : * 2000 responses received, narrowed down to 12 most important scandals. * 2 members of the House Judiciary Committee make it to the last 12! * Also "qualifying" is a (gasp!) Republican Senator involved in a threesome! * It so happened that most of the scandals involved (gasp!) Republican politicians.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (18014)	12/10/1998 10:43:00 PM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Daniel, you're back at the obfuscation and diversion again! You know perfectly well why Nazi's were mentioned in that discussion way back - because of your broad-brush insinuation that all Republicans were dishonest. I appropriately challenged your statement - as in, it was as absurd as saying all Germans were Nazis or that all white people were racist. Instead of recognizing your fallacious argument, you wander off the point (again, as always) and divert attention from your failure to make a substantive point. You did it again when I challenged your assertions that Clinton was typical of politicians now in the House or Senate - that you thought it was typical of men of that era to dodge military service. When I destroyed that argument with facts about the service records of many House and Senate members you wandered of into irrelevance again. It was unknowable how someone would or should have voted and still is. If it were not, why would you and your WH cronies worry? Go find some other spin-cycle material, Daniel - your's is lacking in relevance and intellectual validity. Mr. K.