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: hmaly who wrote (157080)	12/30/2002 1:29:40 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580276

However, some of your posts at the end were getting sad, and to say nothing about them would have meant I thought just Ted was going overboard in the exchange. Guilty as charged.... Jimmy Carter, under his presidency, and as Bill's negotiator, perpetuated what he and every president since 53 has done, which is contain NK until it collapses of its own dead weight. GW is simply continuing that policy, by waiting NK out. The stakes are higher now. And while I have no problem with the nature of the deal Carter cut, there is a critical missing element: Verifiability. The fact that this element is missing means the agreement was destined to fail. At any rate, by saying he wasn't into mind games, and quiting the debate, Ted was just saying uncle I see what you're saying. I suppose I anticipate hearing, "You're right, I'm wrong". I've said it before (not often, though<g>), but I haven't heard that from Ted. He either quietly ignores the post or gives a subtle capitulation as you suggest. Anyway, I have a project due out 1/31/03 and probably need to spend some time on IT for a while...

To: hmaly who wrote (157080)	12/30/2002 3:34:31 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580276

You asked the other day how one would know, Ted knew he was wrong in a debate. Well, how do we know when anyone loses a point in these online or any other debates? The guy losing, loses all rationale. When Ted posted he wasn't into mind games, does that make any sense? That is exactly what a debate is, a mind game. If you aren't into mind games, then go on a site where you can play tiddly winks all day. And in some areas Ted is very good at mind games. Playing the stock market is nothing but a mind game, and Ted seems very good at that. I just wish that he would use some of the talents he shows there in his political side. At any rate, by saying he wasn't into mind games, and quiting the debate, Ted was just saying uncle. Was I too smug over getting Ted to say uncle; perhaps. In fact Ted has mentioned it before, but I am an old man who doesn't change habits easy, so please accept my mea culpas, and I will try to tone that down. I play mind games only after I have given what I consider to be solid support for my position only to have it invalidated. And because being right has become too much of an issue in these discussions much of the learning that was evident early on on this thread has been lost. And frankly, many of the disagreements are very real. I do not support Sen. Murray because she is a liberal. I support her because I understand where she is coming from emphatically and her comments makes good sense to me. If I thought for one moment that her discussion in front of those kids was intended to undermine the American position, I would be outraged. However, knowing Sen. Murray and her positions, I believe she was trying to provide positive ways that we can enhance our reputation in the world. I find it most unfortunate that others on this thread took her comments so negatively. Sometimes you see these signs.....My way or the highway, or America.....love it or leave it. For me, that's the way exchanges on this thread feel like. I love this country but I also see its flaws and I am not afraid to point them out when I think its appropriate. ted

To: hmaly who wrote (157080)	12/30/2002 3:39:16 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580276

4) Not only you, but everyone one this thread seems to be debating on a small scale basis, when the problems we are discussing are much larger than that. Mayabe it is just me, but I think we could eliminate a lot of the bipartisan wrangling, if we would elevate the discussions above that if possible. Case in point. The discussions about Iraq and Yugoslavia, have broken down into bipartisan shouting matches, instead of being in favor of intervention, or not. Frankly, it should make no difference who is president, intervention or not is the question. All presidents have to look at both the micro and the big picture. We should look at it that way, also. I think the bipartisan wrangling sucks. I had no idea of the conflict that existed between conservatives and liberals until this thread. And while I have a tendency to blame the thread, in reality it appears to be an ongoing issue that seems to have become more intense since Bush's election. I think the current issues that face this nation are far more serious than this bipartisan crap would suggest. ted