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: American Spirit who wrote (480904)	10/24/2003 1:10:27 PM
From: JakeStraw	Respond to of 769667

>>with a bunch of RNC concocted BS and it's no use debating with you My reply to you is simple... Change RNC above to DNC...

To: American Spirit who wrote (480904)	10/24/2003 3:41:38 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Just forget it. Obviously, you're trying to attack Kerry with a bunch of RNC concocted BS and it's no use debating with you about it. Either the things the RNC has reported about Kerry's votes in Congress and other public stances taken over the years are true or they are false. I cited them, noted that they were from a biased source but that they seemed to be merely reporting items of public record, and invited you to refute those facts. There is a difference between "BS" and "facts". "Facts" are things that happened, such as how somebody voted as an elected representative and what things the person has said publicly. "BS" is things that didn't happen, or things you just say without regard to whether they are true or false. I am sure you are familiar with the concept. "BS" would include many of the things you have said over your time on SI that aren't true, a small portion of which have been collected here -- Subject 54350 -- as a public service for those who wish to know the veracity and trustworthiness of those whose posts they are reading. Just remember, weakness on defense has less to do with the amount of money you spend that being sjmart about it. Spending the money wisely has never been a hallmark of our defense establishment in my opinion. Indeed, spending money wisely has rarely been the habit of any governmental entity with which I am familiar. The question then becomes, when we cut back or vote against defense programs (or propose that the programs generally should be frozen or cut back), are we thereby improving our national defense and our ability to achieve objectives safely and effectively? The answer to that question, I think, is "no" unless some significant improvement occurs in the choices made as to how to spend the money. I don't see any likelihood that wiser spending will occur under Kerry than it would under Dean or Sharpton or Bush or Clinton. You are free, as always, to point out facts which indicate that Kerry would support defense strength. Specific votes, for example, where he took a pro-defense position that others were not taking would be most interesting to see. I honestly don't know if those votes are out there to be shown or not. I do know that you are perhaps Kerry's biggest supporter on SI, and you haven't shown any facts to support your candidate on this issue. BS, on the other hand, well, you've been pretty good at showing that. I am most impressed by your abilities in that area.