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: Neocon who wrote (30785)	1/29/1999 12:33:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

The distinction between hating Clinton, "which implies a certain ferocity of feeling", and despising him is a subtle one. I'll leave that to those who are offended by the semantics of "is" but don't have a problem with the semantics of "I". Actually, I don't hate him, I despise him. I despised him since the Democratic primaries in '92, because of his smarminess. Message 7488482 You seem to have exhibited a certain ferocity of feeling there Neocon. Was it just a slip? I admit to a moderate degree of sensitivity in this area, having been labeled a "partisan hater" very early on here. As in: 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. Message 5796530 In case you're wondering why I don't care to engage in "civilized discourse" with certain people here, that was just the beginning, there was a lot more to come. Took me a while to realize how ironic that characterization was, given the breath and depth of Clinton hatred continually expressed here. As in another post from that particular poster: Be happy to have GOP die if that's what it takes to defeat Clinton, the anti-Christ. https://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=6953294 I still find the characterization of Newt's dumping of the luridly detailed Starr report and Clinton videotape as "non-partisan and professional" highly amusing. Sure blew up in his face. I will credit you with civility, Neocon, I apologize for that "shove it" thing, lost somewhere I don't recall. But please, let's not get all semantical about "Most of us don't hate Clinton". The emotions are obvious enough. Personally, I wish all the Clinton haters would get on with their own hateful lives. Perhaps all the Clinton despisers could get on with their own despicable lives, if they prefer it that way. To my point of view, he's just this guy, you know? If political battles are going to be fought by other means, I'm happy to have somebody around who understands those other means well.

To: Neocon who wrote (30785)	1/29/1999 5:32:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Since you are a self proclamed "neo-conservative", can you tell me how you feel about the moral position of the republicans at this point. Does it bother you that the far right, Riligious Right, Christian Coalition etc are featured so prominently in the republican agenda. I ask that because my parents were lifelong republicans but would never align themselves with the religious right or the values of Dan Quayle and his ilk. It seems to me that a modern republican party should evolve, and leave the christian coalition to form a separate party. I think the republican leaders must also be thinking this because it was fairly obvious from the republican response to the state of the union, where they needed 2 separate people with 2 separate messages (very lame, btw). You of course realize that Dunn and Largent are diametrically opposed to one anothers social agenda. Dont you think voters will be confused by that - kind of like rolling the dice as far as what you are going to get from the republicans?