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: rich4eagle who wrote (251174)	4/26/2002 12:26:00 AM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

"Well, as usual you got it half right and then twisted the meaning to make it in effect all wrong" rich - I don't twist things to make the meaning wrong. I give my interpretation of what I think your post must mean. That is why I often quote clips from posts so people get the idea of where I am coming from. That is not to say that I am never wrong in my interpretation, but I do not purposely twist to mislead. I appreciate your post clearing up how you feel about religion because I really did think you hated religion. I am glad that you do not, as we agree there are fanatics that will use religion for "evil" purposes, but it also does a lot of good for a lot of people. That said, I truly believe there are many on the liberal side of things (and some, but fewer imo on the conservative side) that do twist meanings to justify their cause. When I see it (or think I do) I will call it out. If I am wrong, that is the opportunity for someone to correct me, and I will admit it when I am. But you need to show why I am wrong (to convince me anyway). There are many on the thread that when confronted with such a post will just say "you're a big liar, jerk, a-hole, etc." without responding to the issue at hand. Just turns into name calling. I'll do my part to be a bit more civil (although there will be an edge to the issues that I feel are important), and I'll make sure that I don't accuse you (and others) of something without some back-up to explain my position. If you will do the same, we can probably have some interesting exchanges in that we do have some differing opinions. Regarding the Palestinian situation, I think the death and destruction on both sides is incredibly sad. It is hard for me to believe that humans can act that way towards each other, and I hope for a quick resolution to the issue. But I do honestly and strongly feel that the Palestinians are primarily at fault, and I hate the PC mindset that always seems to say that nobody is at fault for anything. Someone needs to convince me that the Israelis started this thing and are at fault for me to change my view, and although I have put the opportunity out there a number of times, nobody has. To me it seems to have started when the U.N. divided the land (in 1948 I believe) and for some reason the Palestinians did not accept their half. I have read that they did not accept it so that other Arab nations could attack and destroy Isreal so the Palestinians (or other Arab nations) could have it all. If that is true, it would be very difficult to change my position. If it is not true, I welcome the opportunity to learn what really did happen. Anyone (who's still reading this novel) care to comment? Scott