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: Mr. Whist who wrote (52504)	10/26/2000 2:05:47 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769669

Actually, flap, it is no more up to Michael to prove the "validity of the Limbaugh piece" then it is for you to prove the Second Law of Thermodynamics or Mendelian genetics. We are all in the boat of having to rely on the word of others to a substantial degree, without independent verification. The issue is always one of trust in such cases. Michael trusts Limbaugh more than you or Gore. That may be foolish, it may be wise, but calling him a dummy will not change it, nor will it sway those who are inclined to believe him. Thus, if you want to debate effectively, the burden is on you to undermine the claims, rather than just being abusive. Otherwise, it is just the usual cacophony, where the neutral throw up their hands, and the committed are never moved to reexamination.......

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (52504)	10/26/2000 2:07:44 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769669

It is startling to witness your inability to formulate organized thoughts which back up your emotionally driven posts. I asked you a simple question. What in that article is factually incorrect. And instead of answering the question, you went out in left field to discuss what people today say is their position. You claim to know the truth. But your truth only involves words which relate to the future, and not actions which relate to the past. When a chronic liar tells you something. It seems to me, it would be a good idea to objectively evaluate whether he has acted in that way in the past. Words are virtually meaningless coming from a liar like Al Gore. I'll ask you again. What in that article is factually incorrect? It's a simple question, and one you should be able to easily answer given your certainty in the previous post. Now, try and stick to the question, What is factually incorrect about the article? It's a simple straightforward question. You said it was full of lies. So point them out to me.