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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (61876)	5/24/2006 1:23:17 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

You see, (probably not) the primary topic is represntation and the subtopic is authenticity, and sub to that is allegation without substance; the other stuff is merely illustrative (except for orcastraiter, who seems to dwell on sexual issues as the center of his perspective). Your original post on this matter was fully about sexual orientation. You now have expanded on the topic underlying your comments about misrepresenting ones sexual orientation being the same as lying about liking dogs. What's really laughable is that you now point the finger at me for "having sexual issues as the center of my perspective". Perhaps you overlooked the fact that I said Hillary's sexual orientation is none of my or your business? This was in response to your original foray into the topic. Orca

To: one_less who wrote (61876)	5/24/2006 1:54:45 PM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 93284

That may be orcastraiter's primary topic or yours but it certainly has not been mine. You may have missed it but my only concern is with authenticity in representation. I made the following comment: I didn't miss your point at all. But you can look at the various posts and see that there was a variance in emphasis between posts. The precise "main topic" or "sub-topic" or "illustration" is merely an arbitrary and subjective emphasis of the moment. You see, (probably not) the primary topic is represntation and the subtopic is authenticity, and sub to that is allegation without substance; the other stuff is merely illustrative (except for orcastraiter, who seems to dwell on sexual issues as the center of his perspective). I think that one would have to click back and see who started what with what emphasis. But as you must certainly know the emphasis is often what the reader perceives at the moment. I'm sure we've all been to meetings and shared each other's meeting notes afterwards and been astonished about how each person views the events of the meeting. Sometimes to such an extent that it's hard to believe they were at the same place, the same time, the same meeting. It's like Mary Cheney and her homosexuality and the love that Dick has for his daughter even thought she has probably eaten more pussy than her father has, or maybe not. But the point here is that the VP exemplifies American Family Values with the acceptance of his daughter as she is. Even if she has violated the laws of God and nature. It is in some ways reminiscent of Thomas Jefferson. When running for the office of the President, he was accused of fathering a child with one of his slaves. When asked about it during the campaign he refused to answer the question citing that if he responded to that one, he would be obligated to respond to each and every accusation. So whether we're talking about Bush being bisexual, homosexual, or paying for an illegitmate abortion, we should always remember that the main point is authenticity in representation. I don't see any disagreement between you and I. jttmab