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: PROLIFE who wrote (524813)	1/15/2004 9:50:24 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

PROLIFE--I'm sick of you spouting out the same crap. Get this through your thick skull--and I say this only 'cause we've crossed this bridge several times in the past: I DO NOT TOW A DNC PARTY LINE! I'm completely independent, my thoughts are my own and not someone else's. I don't parrot a party line. I think the two party system does more harm than good, and the evidence to this is the clear and blatant fact that so few people vote. That I would prefer a Democrat over a Republican is obvious, and with good reason--look at what Republicans stand for: profits over people. I'm for people. But this doesn't mean I "tow" a party line. Heck, I disliked Clinton way back when he formed and became president of the Southern Democratic Leadership Conference (is that the correct name--I forget?), the group that put Super Tuesday together. I didn't need a weak and red herring-like excuse you folks did in order not to like Clinton as a politician. And my dislike for him predated your bum trip. Got it? Libertarians are cool except virtually every Libertarian I've ever met usally has an issue or few that they really can't be all that Libertarian on, whether it's health care, the environment or taxes, etc. Of the third party candidates of recent decades--candidates who never stood a chance of winning in America--I'd say Nader and Andersen were the most interesting. Regarding the hardlinism of Socialist Workers Party, Communist Party, etc., I think they've got some pretty good ideas but many of them are unworkable and don't quite fit where people are really at. I pretty much fall into a position where I say right on to the hula-hoop, the pet rock and the entreprenurial spirit of people; however, I damn the bastards who took the tin, who took the copper, the silver, the gold, the diamonds, the timber, the rubber, the oil, etc. from third world nations leaving the people who live in those nations under the lousy spell of dictators who made the deals with the respective corporations. In my life I ran twice and won as a Democrat, ran once and lost as a Republican and am the receipient of the Libertarian Party Friend of Freedom Award. In fact, I'm one of the very few candidates I voted for who actually won--lol! Most of the people I vote for lose. Now, after reading all of this will you do me a favor? Please don't ever lead off one of your posts to me like you did the last one. This said, let me read the rest of what you wrote, as I only read the first line which prompted this reponse.

To: PROLIFE who wrote (524813)	1/15/2004 11:28:40 PM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 769667

OK, I just read the rest of your post and I find your writing disgusting, mean spirited, distorted; at a minimum, it was limited in scope; at a maximum, it was full of presumption. >>>NO one is paying any attention to your tripe other than to make fun of you...are you wondering why?<<< Hey, I'm not participating here for credit or acceptance. The bottom line is that I write what I think and what I believe. And I try, as much as possible, to reference the positions I take. I don't make a point to insult others in juvenile fashion, as many are apt to do, and the kinds of questions I ask are more to learn, sometimes to make a point or to show that someone doesn't have a clue as to what they're writing about. Now, if people participating here have trouble with this, then that's their bum trip--it's not mine! Moreover, do note my disappointment over the fact that of all the exchanges you and I have had, I've learned very little, if anything, from you. Your positions are old hat, near rote and more likely the product of someone else's thinking. And don't be surprised that I see you as not a deep thinker, because I think you're already aware of this. >>>BTW, the UN, Germany, UK, Russia, CLinton(both of them,) all the Dem Senators, all Clinto's cabinet....all knew Saddam had WMD and all knew he had to be dealt with.<<< Perhaps now you're learning why I actually don't tow a DNC party line. If you think I supported Democrats who voted for Bush's preemption option you're very mistaken. Rolf Eckeus, former chief UN weapons inspector gave a speech at Harvard stating the following, as reported by Associated Press: "I would say that we felt that in all areas we have eliminated Iraq's capabilities fundamentally." casi.org.uk Being president of America is more about politics than doing the right thing. Do you agree? And since the invasion of Kuwait it was politically the popular thing to always oppose Saddam's regime no matter what kind of objectivity got in the way. I submit that the GOPwinger abuse heaped upon Clinton via the Lewinsky matter caused Clinton to use Saddam as a tool of political convenience and that tools of diplomacy thus were never used. As Clinton went, so did the party of Democrats. >>>But, in the end, the failure of your best buddy, Saddam, to adhere to any of the numerous UN Resolutions<<< First off, Saddam is not, never has been and never will be--as you mean-spiritedly claim--my "buddy." I place him firmly in among those linked below, a list of some of the most horrible humans ever to walk the earth--but a list replete of individuals of whom American insiders found opportunities for business and profit. home.iprimus.com.au Secondly, regarding the Iraq situation, if one is the president of a country and you have no weapons of mass destruction but the president of America wrongfully claims and insists that you do, what choices are there? >>>and the offers to leave the country<<< Perhaps you should read about Chief Joseph of the Nez Percé tribe. You probably wouldn't want to leave your home land either. >>>and his determination to rape his country until it was stone cold dead, is why he had to be dealt with.<<< Was he any better than Iran's Shah? I refer you back to the dictators list where rapes of lands happened. That the US profited from this raping did not make the raping any to the better. Did it? Yes, Saddam was a tyranical and ruthless dictator. He did what dictators have always done, torture and persecute political enemies. Indeed, he was wrong to invade Kuwait just as we were wrong to invade Iraq--both were violations of international law and both worthy of condemnation. >>>The fact that the sissies in France and the sissies in Germany could not back us makes NOT ONE bit of difference.<<< I understand. You are from the Diplomacy Sucks School of Thought. About the only folks you'll impress with this line of thinking is a few folks you might meet at the local dump or diner and a few diehards who post here. Be assured that cozying to Bush does not absolve your lack of sensitivity to the need for diplomacy in the world.