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: JBL who wrote (31522)	2/1/1999 8:21:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

Bleat on, JBL. I'm sorry that you think that a particular inconsistency in Jordan's testimony is an impeachable offense, but that's your choice. I'm sorry that the NYT had that article about Smith, Porter, Marcus, and Rosenzweig and how they set up the Paula Jones suit, but the source were clear and it was an interesting story. I'm sorry that you feel the NYT doesn't give sufficient weight to the matter of Clinton hatred, but I think it gives plenty. You know my line on the dreaded liberal press bias. The sources you like are "objective" and the ones you disagree with are "biased". I don't read the WSJ regularly, but I've read the editorial page enough in the past to know that it's see no evil on Republican matters, and no innuendo is too baseless on Democrats. I'm sure that matches your preferences just fine. Even the master of "substantive debate", mrknowitall, said people read the WSJ editorial page to confirm their beliefs, not for information.