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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (157597)	6/3/2003 12:24:29 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Thanks, scott, for demonstrating my point to Lizzie about it being the Bush-bashers who most often invoke Hitler into the discussion of Iraq - to try to equate Bush rather than Saddam to him. BTW, which of that long list of administration statements was Pitt calling a "big lie"? I see one, the claim by Rumsfeld that "we know where they are" that can effectively be shown to be wrong, but being wrong and lying are not the same thing. Can you show (based on factual evidence and not GST's standard of accusation-as-proof if vague enough and supported by enough platitudes) any of the other statements to be lies? Lastly, it's rather amusing to read someone denying that there were facts to support the administration's positions and then thinking the following makes their case against Bush: The case for war against Iraq has not been made. This is a fact. No, that is an opinion - a subjective judgement based on his own views of what would constitute justification for war, which in his case is likely nothing. It is doubtful in the extreme that Saddam Hussein has retained any functional aspect of the chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons programs ... LOL. "Doubtful in the extreme" is a factual argument? ...so thoroughly dismantled by the United Nations weapons inspectors who worked tirelessly in Iraq for seven years. This is also a fact. Yes, it is a fact that weapons inspectors were in Iraq for seven years. They probably even worked tirelessly. But Pitt is clever here by mixing in a falsehood with a fact and then emphatically claiming something in the sentence to be a fact. It is NOT a fact that anything was "thoroughly dismantled." Reports of inspectors to the UN from 1998 to 2002 and the FACT that the security council unanimously passed 1441 last fall effectively demonstrate that it is Pitt who is lying here. Or maybe he isn't actually lying - maybe he only meant the seven years was factual. Clever dude.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (157597)	6/3/2003 4:16:46 PM
From: Alomex	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Once upon a time, we impeached a sitting President for lying under oath about sexual trysts. No one died, no one had their legs or arms or face or genitals blown off because of the lies of a President who had been caught with his pants down. Today in America, we endure a sitting President who lied for months about the threat posed by a sovereign nation. But you see, the difference is that Clinton was a democrat. Clinton was a draft dodger and a pot head. Bush, with exactly the same record, is a "pilot" and a reformed "alcoholic/cocaine addict".