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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Edwarda who wrote (57668)	10/7/1999 3:19:00 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 108807

I am sure that what you are saying is true....

To: Edwarda who wrote (57668)	10/7/1999 4:08:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

>I am confident that she did not intend any personal insult, just utter bemusement anyone could support him. < I (Lather and Repeat are napping; Rinse here) will take this a step further. "I am confident that she did not intend any personal insult, just utter bemusement that anyone could support certain of his statements and actions. Because some of the stuff that has been adequately documented - like the way he fabulated (and shook off dissent on those fabrications), or the way he authorized the discretionary war in Central America - these were not good things. The way I see it, the central debate here is how important these things are to the quality of a President. To Michael M, they are clearly negligible. To E, they are grounds for believing that he should not have held office. For most of us, it's somewhere between those two ideological goalposts. But this debate SHOULD be pursued with everyone here respecting the "nuance" concerning shooting the message vs. the messenger. And everyone here SHOULD be able to muster sufficient distance between his own pride and the subject matter to keep things courteous, even if "emphatic" is called for. Jm$.02