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: Srexley who wrote (595583)	7/26/2004 7:21:39 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

<<The example for Christians was your contention that those who believe in biblical history and that God is qualified to carry out his will as he sees fit (which is quite a large number of people) condone genocide.>> But this is factually true: they condone the actions taken by Moses and Joshua as described by the Bible. Pilch concedes the point. And i've never argued otherwise. And i have said i find a moral code which cannot condemn such actions as always wrong is problematic and inferior to a moral code which always condemns such actions as wrong. So where's my hatred of Christians? <<"Ah, blaming others for you behavior, more Republican values on display">> All you reveal here is your own stupidity. I'm calling you a hypocrite for not living up to the values Republicans espouse: like personal responsibility. How is this evidence of my hatred of Republicans? <<You are dishonestly portraying republicans as a group that blames, when really they predominantly believe in individual responsiblity and fight pretty hard against the victimology the democratic party seems to embrace. Jeez. That was easy. Got anything else?>> Like i said, all you've done is expose your own stupidity and hypocrisy. Stop blaming others for your hatred, live up to your Republican ideals and take responsibility for your own hatred of others. <<Take responsibility for your posts.>> I already answered that question, directly. Steve Dietrich

To: Srexley who wrote (595583)	7/26/2004 7:44:37 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

<<the one where you stated categorically that "They weren't securing his route".>> Look at the post: <<Idiotic to think there is any significance at all to the 7 minutes needed to secure the President's route.>> You can repeat a lie as many times as you want and it's still a lie. They weren't securing his route, he stayed at the school another 25 minutes or so even after he left the classroom after those famous 7 minutes. And he even took time to address an assembly telling students and teachers that there had been an apparent terrorist attack against the U.S. (So much for the not wanting to alarm the children lie). You said those 7 minutes were used to secure his route. They obviously weren't or he would've left. Instead he hung around and left as scheduled at 9:30 after addressing teachers and students. They (everyone but Bush) probably used those 7 minutes to decide what to do next. But why wasn't Bush involved in that decision? Why was he reading "My Pet Goat" with school children? The meaning of my post is clear. If you want to keep calling it a lie, have a party. The facts are on my side: those 7 minutes weren't about securing Bush's route as you've so often asserted. Steve Dietrich