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 (186875)	4/20/2004 11:48:11 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573073

like the claim that he raped Monica, For the record, I never claimed he "raped" Monica. I simply pointed out that the imbalance of power between Clinton and Monica made his activities with her tantamount to rape. Legally, technically, it wasn't rape. But the power was an intoxicant, and had he gotten her sh*tfaced drunk and the BJ occurred, or given her a "date rape" drug, that would have been the same thing. Just for the record ;)

To: TimF who wrote (186875)	4/21/2004 5:16:41 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573073

What you don't get is that they are not "extreme and false statements". I don't "get it" because they are extreme and false statements. I don't think any reasonable person dispationally looking at the facts could call something like "Bush said that Iraq would blow up American cities in a matter of months" true or moderate. Bush did not use those exact words. He was careful to say that an attack was possible, not imminent. It was Rumsfeld and Cheney who intimated that it could happen at any time.......that includes sooner rather than later. Based on their combined comments, a reasonable person could conclude that Iraq was a clear and present danger to the US and that an attack could happen at any time. And such an attack most likely would be leveled at American cities where it would do the most damage. You may not agree but that's what most people heard. And that's why the poll numbers changed in favor of going to war. 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 Clinton was facing the kind of attack that some people have made hear I would defend him. In fact I have defended him against a couple of similar extreme statements that I consider false like the claim that he raped Monica, or the claim that he had a whole bunch of people killed to avoid exposore of illegal activities. I hope you notice the post from DR refuting what you said. He denies he ever said rape. Interestingly, he got that you were referring to him even though you didn't mention his name. Now, I know he said rape.........I know because I was shocked when he made the accusation. And he said it repeatedly and with a great deal of vigor. Now its what.....one or two years later......he claims he never said rape. You may consider this reversal to be humorous but its what I experience all that time from neocons.......mostly on the G Bush thread but here as well. Its very frustrating. You don't do the same thing but you can completely 'miss" something because it doesn't work for you. Case in point is the inflammatory comments by Bush leading up to the war. I'm not making it up....and others agree with me. I do think you let your bias blind you to the reality.........or you don't hear it because its not threatening to you as it would be to me. You have never once said Iraq is a mess. I've said it at least a half dozen times on SI. As far as I remember, never to me. ted