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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (95297)	1/14/2005 5:07:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793801

That would be because they didn't have any 'splaining to do, I'd say. Presidents X, Y and Z talk about faith, but only President Z gets dumped on for not talking about "non-faith." And when I ask you, "why President Z?" I get zero response of any substance. I ask you for an explanation, and I get Ricky Ricardo imitations. More of the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" routine. You remind me of the Jewish mother who gave her son a red shirt and a blue shirt for his birthday. When he came down for breakfast wearing the red shirt, she looked at him sorrowfully and asked, "the other one you didn't like?"

To: Lane3 who wrote (95297)	1/15/2005 5:44:27 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793801

LOL! Even when affirmative evidence is given that credibly establishes you are wrong; you manage (still with zero evidence) to spin the damning evidence against you into a negative against Bush. The "evil" Bush repeatedly made heartfelt, inclusive remarks about non-religious folks to make up for alleged nonverbal dismissiveness in the past. He certainly had no right to non-verbally have you playing second fiddle to those "ragheads"! Bush is such a bigot, unlike you, eh? I'll give you credit though. You were clever enough to also absolve all liberal Presidents (again with zero evidence) who have no established history of making similar heartfelt statements that were inclusive of the non-religious, yet they received none of your ire. No doubt you'll continue to assure us that you aren't liberally biased. Unfortunately, some of us will find this incredulous since do you have a consistent history of smearing conservatives in the face of clearly conflicting evidence (&/or with no credible evidence). And yes, you also have a history of defending liberals in the face of clearly conflicting evidence with some very contorted confabulations. No doubt it has a lot to do with your version of nuance (and reality).