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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wayners who wrote (39975)	8/3/2004 10:25:44 AM
From: redfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Another false dilemma you lying sack of dung.

To: Wayners who wrote (39975)	8/3/2004 11:32:37 AM
From: cirrus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

There were no terrorists in Iraq before Bush invaded, just as there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. Saddam may have been a lot of things, but he was not in cahoots with terrorists. Why would he be? Indeed, his secularism was at odds with the objectives of Muslim fundamentalists. He knew full well that any association with terrorist groups would cause the US to bring down the hammer. However, Bush brought down the hammer anyway - to the delight of terrorists the world over. Here's a quote from an Iraqi victimized by the terrorist bombing of Christian churches in Iraq: `Before the Americans came, everything was fine,` he said. `We all celebrated Easter and Christmas and Eid,` a Muslim holiday. `We were out in the streets until midnight. Now there is no army, no police, no security on the borders. They say they brought us freedom, but look what this freedom has brought us.` washingtonpost.com; I'll bet he's now a supporter of anyone who can get even with America... If you think that U.S. civilians should be attacked in New York city instead of U.S. troops taking on terrorists directly,

To: Wayners who wrote (39975)	8/3/2004 12:05:41 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

If you think that U.S. civilians should be attacked in New York city instead of U.S. troops taking on terrorists directly, Did I say that I prefer US civilians should be attacked? The US civilians are under a threat of being attacked in US is what I said. Are you a moron or what? Do you understand how infuriated I get when you turn and twist what I said? Where on Earth did I say I prefer US civilians be attacked. Wayne, I prefer that you not be here on this thread if you come on and deliberately twist what I said. I know you are a smart guy, but surely you are not smart enough. I have never said I prefer US civilians be attacked here. Rather I prefer our troops guard us here for our safety than guard the Iraqis and their safety with our money. I want my troops here to guard me first. Then go and guard others is what I say. So you be careful and cut out that crap rhetoric of yours by twisting what I said. End of matter.