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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (142632)	2/15/2002 1:26:41 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1576949

However, he does have a record. Here are some things I have posted in the past. This is so weak. You accuse Bush of "lying", yet all you can come up with are unsubstantiated allegations, legitimate semantic disagreements, and (ugh!) Molly Ivins calling Bush a liar. Ivins is, of course, so extreme in her liberalism that she is incapable of presenting a shred of factual information in her so-called columns. Her supposed "take" on Texas politics is has always been long on sarcasm and short on facts. What is really disingenious about your remarks is that while you criticize Bush for these three non-lies, you fail to criticize Clinton for compulsive lying, which gave us untold hundreds of well-documented lies during an eight-year term as president, and at least as many during his terms as governor of Arkansas. While not as frequent a liar as Clinton, Al Gore was repeatedly caught in lies during his term. Bottom line, it is indeed bizarre that you would see fit to criticize Bush for what, by anyone's measure, is no more than political rhetoric, while you give Clinton/Gore (and for that matter, other liberals like this sleezy Terry McAuliffe, Carville, & Begala) an out and out pass on the tons of serious lies they have told. Why do you do this?