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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (186844)	4/20/2004 11:07:51 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572982

With you, however, anything that is negative about Bush, you will try to turn it into roses. In another words, you try to call a spade a heart Ted I didn't praise the speech, nor did I ever say everything is fine and dandy with Iraq. You find me defending Bush because the extreme and false statements that are made against him. I do not attack anything negative that is said about Bush and in fact I have said negative things about him myself. I'd rather he win the next election the Kerry but he is far from an ideal dream candidate for me. He is even far from being an ideal realistic candidate for me. But if I say he didn't make a specific false statement I get accused of saying he always tells the truth or I get accused of playing word games because he made another statement different then the one I said he didn't make. If I say I would rather have him as president then Kerry, or Gore, or Clinton I get accused of being "highly partisan" and in your latest post I am basically accused of being a liar. What you don't get is that they are not "extreme and false statements". Trying to deal with issues raised by some people here is like trying to nail down a liquid. If I nail it solidly it just flows around somewhere else changing its shape. The original argument isn't defended or conceded instead a new argument comes up and its supporters claim its the same as the original argument and then they attack me for pointing out the real differences. Trying to deal with you is an exercise in frustration. You are anal to the nth degree, and then you have this habit of picking up a discussion after two or more weeks have elapsed. How the hell do you expect me to remember everything that was posted over a three week period; then, followed by a two week gap. Sorry, Tim, but I don't have the time to refresh my memory every time you post. If I support Bush, and not in a great positive way but rather only in reaction to what I see as inaccurate attacks against me, then I am supposedly highly partisan, while the attacks, which are more extreme in substance and style then anything I post here are apparently immune from this charge... On those rare times when you criticize Bush, they are mild......a slap on the hand comes to mind. So please, he may not be your dream candidate but you will defend him forever. If I say Iraq is a mess I'm a partisan defender of Bush because I don't call it a disaster, if I say Bush has been secretive and some of his statements where false I am again a partisan supporter of Bush because I don't call him the king of all liars. That is just a big load of repulsive nonsense. You have never once said Iraq is a mess. Early on, once or twice you claimed that you weren't sure about going to war. But then later, you retracted that position and said you thought the war was the right move. Tim, you're crying over milk that wasn't spilt. ted