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 : A Neutral Corner -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suma who wrote (316)	9/21/2005 3:32:42 PM
From: Rambi	Respond to of 2253

If you are accusing me of labelling that poster a Bushhater, you had better reread the exchange. He is the one who labelled himself a Bushhater, not to mention a Hit and Run Poster. He came in, insulted the thread, and then admitted to being both. THAT is what kills dialogue, Suma, not disagreeing with a position. His only position was that he hated Bush and held him completely accountable for everything bad that happens, and didn't plan on discussing anything constructively anyway. That's bile.

To: Suma who wrote (316)	9/21/2005 4:33:23 PM
From: Constant Reader	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2253

I am genuinely sorry that my original post has caused so much misunderstanding. It was not my intent to whitewash or otherwise excuse the host of mistakes that Bush, FEMA, and the federal government have made. I was commenting on the Washington Post story and the fact that many, many people, both left and right (and some hysterical) made serious charges and claims about a wide variety of things, events, and people before the true facts were known. As more information comes to light, many of those claims and charges have proved inaccurate. Because I was being lazy, I chose an easily understood example of that, the charge that Bush "funding cuts" were somehow responsible for the breaks. I didn't think this was any longer even remotely believed in light of what we all know now so I thought it an easy one to use. My mistake, I guess. Don's response had almost nothing to do with my post. Despite the fact that it was sarcastic and personal and not about the subject being discussed, I replied and asked if he objected to a number of things. As his subsequent reply demonstrates, Don voluntarily chose to place himself into a box of his own design. I imagine that he is quite capable of having a good conversation about any number of subjects, but he has clearly indicated that he cannot when the name George W. Bush is mentioned. I am sorry about that, but that remains his problem, not ours.