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: pezz who wrote (50674)	5/31/1999 10:00:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

We are continually balancing things in our estimate of the severity of crimes, and the appropriate penalties. Thus, we distinguish between murder and manslaughter, with various gradations besides. By the logic you have employed in your post, the fact that we recognize justifiable homicide, or treat negligent homicide less harshly than murder, means that we are insincere in our desire to do justice, and instead merely want to control--- whom? to what purpose? Few people have the heart to ban abortion in cases of rape and incest. Does the fact that they find these sufficient excuses mean that they are merely "conrolling" in the other instances? At worst, it means that they are "going soft", and should ban all abortions. At best, it is a complex calculation of when the lack of responsibility of the mother, and the horror of the circumstances, weigh in favor of mercy...

To: pezz who wrote (50674)	5/31/1999 10:04:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

"Control." Control of what? Make me see your point. JLA

To: pezz who wrote (50674)	6/1/1999 10:39:00 AM
From: lorrie coey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

We're talking about the Daily Bread of the Angry White male! As pezz said, quite aptly, I Might add... "This is about control... people like yourself just don't like what this says about this movement. Thus, they don't want to see." "denial" From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913) Denial *\Deni"al\, n. [See {Deny}.] 1. The act of gainsaying, refusing, or disowning; negation; -- the contrary of {affirmation}. You ought to converse with so much sincerity that your bare affirmation or denial may be sufficient. --Bp. Stillingfleet. 2. A refusal to admit the truth of a statement, charge, imputation, etc.; assertion of the untruth of a thing stated or maintained; a contradiction. 3. A refusal to grant; rejection of a request. 4. A refusal to acknowledge; disclaimer of connection with; disavowal; -- the contrary of confession; as, the denial of a fault charged on one; a denial of the Goddess. {Denial of one's self}, a declining of some gratification; restraint of one's appetites or propensities; self-denial. From WordNet (r) 1.6 (wn) denial n 1: the act of refusing a request; "it resulted in a complete denial of his privileges" 2: an assertion that something alleged is not true 3: a defense mechanism that denies painful thoughts** 4: renunciation of your own interests in favor of the interests of others [syn: {abnegation}, {self-abnegation}, {self-denial}, {self-renunciation}] 5: a defendant's answer or plea denying the truth of the charges against him; "he gave evidence for the defense" [syn: {defense}, {defence}, {demurrer}] [ant: {prosecution}]