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.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (60137)	12/23/2003 11:21:50 PM
From: abstract	Read Replies (10) \| Respond to of 65232

It isn't so much the "factual" accuracy of your statements, as much as you have facts and I have opinions. You have a political ideology. I have ideas. I want to have a discussion. You want to "challenge" me. I have "inappropriate perceptions." You "accurately label a person." You have a "plethora of factual information." I think I'm starting to notice a trend here. I am always wrong. You are always right. And there are those you espouse. I have never seen you question Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz. Not sure about Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell; you don't seem to mention them very often. Tell me how you respond to this item: The President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board has concluded that the White House made a questionable claim in January's State of the Union address about Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain nuclear materials because of its desperation to show that Saddam had an active program to develop nuclear weapons, the WASHINGTON POST is planning to report in a Page One Exclusive on Wednesday. After reviewing the matter for several months, the intelligence board, chaired by former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, has determined that there was "no deliberate effort to fabricate." Instead, the board believes the White House was so anxious "to grab onto something affirmative" about Saddam's nuclear ambitions that it disregarded warnings from the intelligence community that the claim was questionable. (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm) In post 60085, I said "As for Bush et al lying, I don't see what their motivation was. Lying would be too transparent a transgression. On the other hand, I can accept that they were hasty and stupidly relied on poor intelligence, or merely the self-conditioned power of wishful thinking." You responded in post 60089 "As for haste, we gave Iraq more than 12 years to comply. Saddam steadfastly refused," essentially saying that the fact that the administration's main reason to go to war, at least as they themselves expressed it, was wrong, really didn't matter. Now, I'm not saying it was wrong to go after Saddam, but I am saying, that if you are going to risk antagonizing the vast majority of people on our planet your logic better be damned tight, and ours clearly and embarrassingly wasn't. Furthermore, I still contend that covert action would have been smarter with unequivocally better results. ---- You post between 10 and 20 posts a day. In over 10,000 posts, never once have I seen you say you were wrong, or that some other poster changed your mind, or taught you something, though I will proudly admit that I haven't read the vast majority of what you publish. Have Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Wolfowitz ever been wrong? I look at various subjects and posters to learn. Why are you here?

To: Sully- who wrote (60137)	12/24/2003 4:46:11 AM
From: Clappy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

I'll extend the same challenge to you on the topic of your clear misperception of my political ideology as I did to our discussion about the factual accuracy of the many articles & speeches I linked during our discussion here. I'd be glad to, point by point, discuss what you inappropriately perceive to be my selective bias about challenging or assailing wrongdoings based on your perception of my political ideology. Either topic or both. Any time you wish to start. Let's just keep it to specific points & refrain from sweeping generalities that cannot be proven. I hope that you & your family enjoy yourselves this holiday season. Have a very Merry Christmas/Happy Hannukkah/Joyous Kwanza/etc., etc. as appropriate. . That warm and loving message would fit perfectly inside the walls of a Hallmark Holiday Greeting Card. <g> Have you considered selling the rights to it? May this season provide your heart with the warmth of a nucular power plant. Merry Christmas Tim. <wts> <with true sincerity> -ClappyNewYear