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: E. T. who wrote (203880)	11/19/2001 1:57:50 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

e.t. you never make a contrary argument once challenged. You mis-state what was said and then dodge into some other issue. then you go to one line you made up your mind and ridicule and insult. For example. When you say you just asked you imply your post had a single thought. Is this a reflection of stupidity or dishonesty. Well what is in the post I responded to that you claim you just asked "cite some of the pro-clinton statements on this thread," #reply-16678159 From: E. T. Nonsense, you don't have to be "pious" to denounce Jerry Falwells' comments after 911, just thoughtful, something Tom Watson appears incapable of. And Tom with your sharp all-seeing analytical eye, please point out where on this thread people defend Bill Clinton. In fact, I'd have to say by the amount times you bring his name up, that you are his biggest fan. So you continue now to fabricate what you said and continue your proffers as explained in my #reply-16678423 Do you understand how stupid it is to argue that because someone mentioned anything several times that they support it, no matter how they mention it. Using e.t. logic the KKK are definitely pro African American, Catholic, and Jew. Using e.t. logic the most pro Jewish folks would have been the Nazis. Now we have defined the basic reasoning ability of e.t. I call it the vacant liberal mind. I see you argue you can denounce Rev Falwell's comments but chose not to disagree with the comments of mr. bill Is that what you mean by no-one defends mr. bill and my posting of an article clearly ridiculing mr. bill is my support of mr bill. Now we have defined the basic reasoning ability of e.t. I also support free speech and freedom to follow one's religious beliefs. I would not denounce Jerry Falwells' comments after 911. They were said in a time of emotional reflection in an overheard conversation. Yes a public conversation, but it was the free flowing words of a dialog. But Rev. Farell has a belief system and a faith and what he said is consistent with his faith. If you denounce Rev Falwell's comment you attack his faith and his right to his belief's. Rev. Falwell sees groups who defend what he sees as evil as offending to God and this can bring God's wrath. My faith has different beliefs and I don't agree with a literal interpretation of Rev Farwell's comments. My belief's envision a merciful God. But Rev Falwell has the right to his beliefs and the right to express them. If in God's eyes for example the murder of the unborn is as I and Rev Falwell believe murder of the innocent, I hope I'm correct and Rev. Falwell is wrong. But all agree that punching a woman in the face for consensual sex is evil. reference: mr. bill and his rape of Ms. Broaddrick. I denounce this vile vicious evil doer mr. bill a pustule on the public scene. But those who are distracted by evil can be blinded to other evil about to consume them. As the rapist spent all his time screwing around and not having a clue about the real danger growing in Afghanistan one can see a general loose logic in what Rev Falwell stated. I don't agree with the direct connection but do see how immorality leads all down a more dangerous paths. Mr. bill's comments were well after 911 and delivered as a prepared speech. do denounce the retards nazis guilt associations made by the stupidest rapist that ever was. tom watson tosiwmee