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: Elroy who wrote (243006)	7/24/2005 3:56:36 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575154

It's the same old trick, discredit the person with labels instead of the message. You get it in spades. It's not a trick. He's earned the discredited position himself. His bias is more the driving force of his conclusions that whatever evidence is put before him. I can't give his posts any value because his partisan anti-Bush bias is so strong that it blocks out anything pro-Bush even where there are some things pro-Bush. How can you value anything he says when you know it is shaped with the desire to convince the reader that EVERYTHING about Bush is bad, EVERYTHING about the situation in Iraq is bad? I can count on one hand the positives Bush has done in the past 5 years. To you, a pro Bush thing is toppling Saddam. I don't agree. I did not agree with the concept of the invasion from the get go. That is my POV and every disaster that has occurred since the invasion supports that POV. Furthermore, I am entitled to have that POV and your attacking will not change it. However, I have posted positive things about Iraq......either you haven't paid attention, or the positive things are not that positive to you. Either way, I am entitled to my opinions and should not have to put up with garbage you put out. You talk as if you are an authority......of what, I am unclear. For most on the thread that has views counter to mine on whatever issue I can read their posts and usually see thought process and what leads to their conclusion. With Ted, its been obvious for a long time now that his conclusion leads him to post various things, as opposed to the other way around. BS. Rarely, did you post non Elroy rants or explanations supporting your positions until recently. Only in the past month, have you started to post articles from the Gulf News, whatever that is. As for me, I have posted articles ad nauseum supporting my position long before you ever started posting on this thread. The problem is not my support material but that you just don't agree with my position. That's your problem,not mine. Now you've got a choice........if you want to keep posting with me, then you start providing data that contradicts my data and we can have a discussion. If not, and you continue to attack who I am and do your usual slash and burn act, then I will simply put you on ignore and be done with it. I've had enough of your bickering. Its your choice.

To: Elroy who wrote (243006)	7/24/2005 3:14:45 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575154

re: I can't give his posts any value because his partisan anti-Bush bias is so strong that it blocks out anything pro-Bush even where there are some things pro-Bush. How can you value anything he says when you know it is shaped with the desire to convince the reader that EVERYTHING about Bush is bad, EVERYTHING about the situation in Iraq is bad? Well, I think just about everything about Bush IS BAD. I would be hard pressed to find an an inch of good against a mile of bad. More so for Iraq. I know the partisans on this thread won't agree, but that's not a "partisan anti-Bush bias". Is Ted a liberal, sure. Does that make him wrong, no more than being a conservative makes anyone right. John