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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ichy Smith who wrote (199933)	8/28/2006 6:50:42 PM
From: sylvester80	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>>George hasn't caught him either, and that doesn't make him a bad president either. If you truly think that Bush is not a bad president because he just haven't caught Bin Laden, then you have your head so far up your ... that has cut all circulation to your brain. Bush is a bad president for a thousand other things way and beyond that. That POS can't even deal with Americans and Katrina and you are talking about Bin Laden? Sheesh... Bush isn't just bad. He is the WORSE president of my generation if not the worst in American history.

To: Ichy Smith who wrote (199933)	8/29/2006 7:47:28 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

It isn't amazing at all. Most of the time, it isn't possible to calmly discuss the present situation because the whacko element screams that it is all Georges fault and on and on. So you respond by saying it was Clinton's fault? The world of politics is apparently binary. Good vs. evil. And everything has to be put in one box or another. Democrats are good or evil depending on where you sit. Republicans are good or evil, depending on where you sit. ...but my suggestion that perhaps they are timing things to coincide with Presidential elections got no response. Why not? because the little minds have an agenda, to pillory the president of the United States. There could be another explanation. You scoped out a 1/4 chance that a random event could fit your timing profile. How many presidential elections did you look at and how many events did you evaluate? Best I could tell, you considered the USS Cole and 9/11. The World Trade Center bombing in Feb 1993 doesn't fit your theory. The 2000 Millenium attacks don't fit the theory. That would include the LAX plot and the USS The Sullivans plot. There were the attacks on the US embassies in Africa in Aug 1998. That doesn't fit your theory either. Then there's the most current London to US plot on the five year anniversery of 9/11. Obviously, that doesn't fit your theory either. I knew at the time you wrote your post, it wasn't a thought out theory. I also suspected that if I wrote a post at that time, the mostly likely "response" I would get was to be ignored. You've done that before; there's a track record. So why would I want to spend any time writing a post that was going to get ignored? Your theory may be obvious to you, but it sure isn't obvious considering all the well known terrorist attacks and plots. Let's look at your other theory....You will note that any reference to clintons misadventure gets a reaction, but my suggestion that perhaps they are timing things to coincide with Presidential elections got no response. Why not? because the little minds have an agenda, to pillory the president of the United States. Based on zero information, i.e., "no responses", you conclude that the reason is "little minds have an agenda". Based on what, the fact that no one responded to your post? How many people actually read your post? You don't know. There's no way of knowing. I might have been the only one that even read your post. While you posted to Chris, he might not have read your post because his life might have taken priority over reading and responding to posts at that moment. Maybe he didn't respond to your post for the same reason I didn't respond to your post. I note that your post wasn't recommeded by anyone. If anyone on the right read your theory they didn't think it was worth recommending. Sorry, but maybe Chris and others that may have read your theory just didn't find it all that interesting. I can postulate all sorts of reasons, mostly benign, why people didn't respond to your post. But the only reason you can come up with is that "little minds have an agenda". And you are unequivical in that respect. What kind of conclusion would you like me to make based on the posts of mine that you ignored? Since you assert that people don't respond to your post because they have "little minds with an agenda" should I take it that you don't respond to my posts because you have a little mind with an agenda? Or do you think you have some special status on the thread? All your posts are worthy of responses, but others are not. Take either of your theories [the election theory or the little minds theory] and elaborate. Justify them. Show that your theory beats the 1 out of 4 odds of a random event by a substantial margin to show the statistical correlation. There is no other debate they are willing or able to have. Except perhaps the abandonment of Israel to the tender mercies of the Muslims around them. Maybe you missed those posts. I also might have missed the posts where the right suggested that Israel didn't have to pummel southern Lebanon. I also might have missed the posts where the right suggested the US could cut back aid to Israel to a mere $1B/year. I might have missed the posts where the right said that the US doesn't have to veto every UN resolution that criticizes Israel. I've posted on multiple occasions on the abysmal record that Israel has on human trafficking [per the US State Department]. I can't get anyone on the right to agree that's a bad thing. Go figure. jttmab