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: j g cordes who wrote (29641)	1/25/1999 11:07:00 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Respond to of 67261

Well. Even I must take an occasional breather, and since I find you were here much later than I, I then by your logic must conclude you to be a most deficient fellow in this area. Dear sir, you are a liberal; and so your accusations amount to quite a great deal of nothing. I engaged you on the concept of the abuse of trust and showed you plainly the philosophical justification for Clinton's impeachment, particularly should you agree with Sen. Byrd about him. I thought you would challenge the argument and though I am physically injured endured your lunacy to await your attempt. Your first attempt, though childish, I let pass-- considering it a kind of “warm-up” for you. Your subsequent attempts I saw presented no real promise, and since it was dinnertime I dropped you to join my family. I received a rather interesting and worthy post from a libertarian here and stayed up to address it, and as one might cast the fly “one last time” thought I'd give you another try. Predictably, and yet to my disappointment, you failed miserably, whining about the “real world”, “constipation”, “love” and all manner of irrelevancies. I am weak and so am restraining myself despite your having pushed the lunatic envelope here. >You seem split between sober political contracts of marriage and teenage romanticism.< It seems this way because you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. I have both the sober contract and the teenage romanticism. I have my fill of both and find it quite preferable to have it so. Yes, I say plainly that I want the woman with whom I have trusted my very life to be irrevocably locked to me legally, spiritually and emotionally. I by no means am ashamed of it. Indeed I would be ashamed were I to have it any other way. There is no split here. The split occurs when liberals and other nits disparage the contract as being somehow “uptight” while esteeming the romanticism. Reasonable people understand that in the presence of both, a synergy develops. Romance is brought to fullness and freedom via contract, and contracts are made stronger by romantic freedom. (I weary of this.) >Pick well my friend, but leave room in your heart for others or else the principals you hold so high will suffocate all you've worked for.< My principles will suffocate nothing. Your compromise and lack of firm principles will destroy all. It is such compromise that allows twists of words such as “weakened” into banality and innocuousness, this, for mere ideological protection. Here, to try protecting your very flawed position, you have actually refused to accept that the very basis of human contracts is trust and that when a contract is broken so has been that trust. In fact you have fatuously argued that trust can be strengthened by the breaking of contracts. Liberal lunacy! It is indeed possible that trust can be strengthened after infidelity, but we cannot by reason claim the infidelity itself caused the increase in trust. Infidelity is no virtue.