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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (4244)	8/24/1999 12:20:00 PM
From: sandintoes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

I don't know if the subject of Clinton pardoning the Puerto Rican terrorists in New York has come up yet, but I think this time he really has gone to far. He is freeing murders who have vowed to kill again, to help Hillary's senate run in NY. This one may backfire. All of the NY Police are up in arms [no pun intended]. Where's the press coverage on this one? Still out chasing GWB's bus? I'm calling my congressman and senators on this one. I'm thoroughly disgusted with that scum bag Clinton. He has no shame.

To: Bill who wrote (4244)	8/24/1999 7:40:00 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Greetings Bill, A complete response would be extremely long winded and it isn't clear that it would have benefit to either of us. So, if you'll allow me to address one [non-provoking]point, one non-judgemental admission and then ask a question to assess whether any further effort is worth it for either of us. A point addressed: Where is your proof, the posts, that talk about the "visiting hours" for truedog and jla? As reflected in your post, that was not something that I claimed or agreed with. I don't think the proof is therefore incumbent on me. If your meaning, though unstated, was that I was inequitable in my distribution of criticism I can provide a post where I criticized Barry for a "reading problem" and redirected him to re-read the original post. Admission: Yes, some of my posts have been caustic. Question: What is the objective? Do you expect that I'll say, "Bill...you've got me....I was all wrong and all of you are completely right thanks for bringing it to me attention." I would hope that you might agree that is as likely as your review of my response would result in "Jim, thanks so very much for your explanation, I understand what your motivation was and it was completely justified and appropriate." I've had quite pleasant, at least I consider them to be, dialogues with DCF, Les, Neocon, Michele, etc. That is what I am interested in and where I wish to put my energies; that would be my objective in a response, but I doubt that a full response would lead towards that objective. It's more likely that would result in a he said...he said....but he said....caustic caustic caustic. I'm not interested in that road to travel. So now I put the ball in your court. What would you like to do? Best Regards, Jim P.S. Referring to the above....well I could say that all of you are completely right...but I would mean to the right as opposed to right as in correct, the later being the intended meaning above...[Humor Bill. Humor. Maybe poor, but humor]