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: jjayxxxx who wrote (163463)	3/8/2003 7:55:40 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575173

>Take a look at what I wrote. I said ulterior motives Clinton "may" have had. And the point is that the conservatives perceived the ulterior motives. In this case, there are no ulterior motives for liberals to perceive. There aren't? I don't necessarily agree that this is the case, but here are two that are commonly perceived: 1. Oil. We've been discussing this for a couple of days. 2. Revenge- "He tried to kill my daddy." I'm not sure I buy them, but to say that there aren't any ulterior motives that could be derived is incorrect. >Huh? You may be the most partisan individual I've ever met (if 'met' is the right word in this context). There's not doubt to me that Ted's pretty partisan, but how many people who post here aren't? And to say he's the most... does the tagline on a certain person's posts, "the liberal mind is a terrible thing," mean anything to you? There are also other liberals on this board whom I'd regard as more more partisan than Ted. Ted's not always right, but he usually makes a good case. If that's what's eating you, then it's your problem. -Z

To: jjayxxxx who wrote (163463)	3/9/2003 3:12:59 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1575173

Take a look at what I wrote. I said ulterior motives Clinton "may" have had. And the point is that the conservatives perceived the ulterior motives. In this case, there are no ulterior motives for liberals to perceive. Get it? Comprende? If you cannot get this small idea without taking it "down to such a partisan level" then you are beyond help and there is no point discussing anything further. Its amazing that you can't see how partisan that sounded. What does Clinton have to do with anything. Bush and Clinton are two different people. And yet someplace in a conservative's defense of Bush, they throw in something negative about Clinton. You guys wear your partisanship on your sleeve. And I know that isn't the case. Or at least I hope so. <g> I'm not going to respond to the rest of your statements. It is very obvious to me that you simply hate Bush and cannot get past that, logic be damned. This is a typical conservative response to criticism of Bush. I don't hate the sucker because I don't know him. However, I do know his performance to date and IMO, its substandard. I don't have to hate the man to make that evaluation. And if you were not so partisan, you might question is performance as well instead of perpetuating this ongoing hero worship that tends to be inappropriate. I suggest you try actually thinking about the issues, rather than 'feeling' your way through each post you respond to. Maybe there is a BHA rehabilitation group you can join up with (Bush Hater's Anonomous). And I feel that maybe you could get over yourself. Maybe you think you think, but what am I? (If that doesn't confuse you, nothing will!) Huh? JJ, you shouldn't hold back your anger.....it might turn into an ulcer. Have a nice day! You too. ted