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: SI Bob who wrote (430306)	7/21/2003 2:33:27 PM
From: JDN	Respond to of 769667

Dear Bob: If you hang around this thread very long you AINT GONNA NEED A HEATER in that garage this winter!! (gg) jdn

To: SI Bob who wrote (430306)	7/21/2003 3:51:32 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 769667

Thread. I just wanted to say that I have never contacted SI about any matter. I think it's interesting that the administrator singled out that post of Watson, and I agree that it's an example of the kind of posting that doesn't add to any discussion. I, however, felt assured that it spoke more to Mr. Watson's problems than it did to my character. I haven't followed this thread for long but I'm curious; are there ANY pro-Bush admin posters here that will actually make a rational and well-thought out response to the important issues? Virtually every one of the "conservative" posters has seemed to often rely on bald-faced, emphatic conclusions to "support" their views, as if they believe that the strength of their assertions will end the discussion. For instance, can anyone give a rational military- political-police action thesis for why Iraq will not remain a constant drain on American lives and money? Why isn't this more like Vietnam and less like South Korea? My view is that the similarities with Vietnam are striking. For instance, we have a culture we don't understand and yet we project American views onto them, we have a huge number of young, passionate, politically and religiously motivated "enemies" who are willing to die to cause us harm, we have a population that contains at least a strong minority that is willing and able to support a guerrilla force that opposes our presence, we are in the process of installing a puppet government, we may well be the only obstacle standing between the Iraqi people and a theocratic form of government, we are considered a foreign invader by many common Iraqis and our goals in Iraq are, at the least, multifaceted, with many of our goals probably at odds with the interests of the Iraqi people, or at least certain factions of them. This seems to me to be the ingredients for a very nasty soup. In the face of deadly resistance from a force that looks just like the man on the street and picks it's time and place to attack, what good is our overwhelming military power? What methods could we employ to deal with that kind of resistance? How many soldiers will we lose? What will that process do to the world leadership of America culturally, economically, in the war against terrorism and, ultimately as the sole superpower in the world. And WHAT DO WE GAIN? In the face of increasing evidence that there were few, if any, compelling reasons for invading Iraq for "imminent danger" issues and given the Bush administrations continued proclamations that it "isn't about Iraqi oil," the "humanitarian" purposes are increasingly touted as the justification for the invasion and our continued presence in Iraq. Even assuming that our invasion of Iraq was motivated by humanitarian purposes, (which I don't) in the final analysis, doesn't it all come down to an acknowledgement of the fact that each culture, each nation and each region's peoples have the right and the power to choose their own path? As a corollary, isn't it a fact that you can help a people in their struggle against injustice, but ultimately they must earn a better future with their own suffering and vote with their own lives. Does anyone here really believe that throwing American blood into this mix will "cure" any ills we perceive in a culture, a religion and a history that dates back thousands of years? Please note that I'm not asking for your opinions on whether I'm an "American hating-pinheaded-liberal-unpatriotic-hope for the worst-Saddam lover." I am just curious to see if there is an alternative viewpoint on this issue that contradicts a view that I and many other anti-Iraq invasion Americans have held from before the invasion and occupation. Anyone? Anyone? Buehler? Buehler?

To: SI Bob who wrote (430306)	7/21/2003 4:18:00 PM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

Well Bob....since you chose Thomas and I to publicly address this, and if dimwit and liar are the standards, then the poster that keeps telling me that he/she has reported me needs to get one of your infamous vacations because not only has he/she blatantly ignored your 20 posts rule, but has also directly insulted me numerous times even after telling us that you had warned him/her, as shown in these two current posts. Message 19126367 RE:You liar Message 19127644 RE:You were a liar You know, as does everyone on the thread, that we have a couple of...er...uh...posters..<g>....here that want to dominate the GWB thread with their tripe, and when they get a reply they don't like, the best they can muster is to threaten to report us to you....so are you going to use THEIR standard of what THEY think is an insult? What fun is that??? LOL.

To: SI Bob who wrote (430306)	7/24/2003 2:48:01 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

I do not understand how stating what one believes to be true is ever a violation of the TOU The individual cnyndwllr made this statement that is false. " This is especially true when the speaker has ADMITTED the error of the statement." #reply-19120771 This is the PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH thread. The discussion in the dialog was about assertions that PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH had lied. In that the above statement is false. I cannot see how asking this question is any kind of a violation. "Why do lie and say the statements were admitted to be in error." That is poor grammar but it is a legitimate question for someone who has just stated what I believe to be totally false mis-statement to support a libelous assertion made by others or oneself about PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH. And if in fact cnyndwllr has spent a lot time motor mouthing and using torturous logic to continue to attempt to make what I see as a stupid proffer and tops that off with completely false statements. Then I see my observation of the intellectual capability of cnyndwllr to be honest sincere and civil. Logically when anyone presents false information they have missed the true facts. And when someone spends as much time as cnyndwllr on what I see as secondary logic and misses all the primary logic and true facts. This observation seem very reasonable. "honest sincere and civil." "You are showing again that cnyndwllr is just another shallow dim witted thinker who thinks he's smart or cnyndwllr is smarter than that and just another liar." Once cnyndwllr had posted a gross falsehood there was little else to focus on. The question was very simply, Was the message the messenger? "And a liar who get's caught is just showing how dumb he is." Is a general third person truth and not an attack. I have in numerous posts used this wisdom to opine that clinton is the stupidest president that ever was. "It's not often two post reveals so much about a person." Is also a very true statement and not an attack. I was in fact surprised that in two posts cnyndwllr has gone from just using poor logic to making flat out false statements that demonstrated the visceral spin to libel of PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH in the media. And in that cnyndwllr later reported he did report what I said as some TOU violation and did not come back and dispute my statements, then he may or may not have seen the logic and truth of what I had said in plain and simple terms. Saying what you believe to be true is civil, sincere and most of all honest. That is the summary of the proper use of the TOU of SI that I understood. If one believes a message or because the message is the thinking of the messengers, saying one thinks that the message is stupid or idiotic is not an attack or insult or name calling. The observation is correct or incorrect and how other judge it to be correct or incorrect reflects on their own credibility. It's an opinion. In that you choose to "address this one publicly." It implies that I was not honest or sincere or civil. And I cannot see your logic.