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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (750336)	9/28/2006 10:22:50 AM
From: Jamey	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

You been listening to that miscreant Cheeney again? The man hasn't been correct or told the truth about anything that has happened in Iraq. But boys will be boys. It is well known that Saddam did not get along with Al Qeda. If you were not part of the inner Sunni circle you were an outcast in Saddam's thinking. The only WMD in Iraq is the tons of irridiated uranium shells that are filling the landscape. Talk about death by degree. Hide and wait- you will see the casualties mount in cancers and babies born without arms and legs. Then Prolife will be able to post some really horrible pictures to amuse you. Santi

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (750336)	9/28/2006 10:33:02 AM
From: CYBERKEN	Respond to of 769667

"...the glassy-eyed Clinton cultists" humanevents.com

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (750336)	9/28/2006 10:35:05 AM
From: CYBERKEN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Coulter: <<Let me be the first to welcome Chris Wallace to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy! If the son of Mike Wallace is a member, can Chelsea be far behind? According to Wallace, Clinton's aide, Jay Carson, demanded that the interview be stopped a few minutes into Clinton's tantrum -- just before the part where he threw the lamp at Wallace. The last time Clinton got that red in the face, the encounter ended with a stained dress. Even Muslims thought Clinton overreacted. But the Clinton Kool-Aid drinkers tell us this was a masterfully planned set-piece by their leader.>>

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (750336)	9/28/2006 10:47:43 AM
From: CYBERKEN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

The anti-American media has anointed two guys who Republicans can't possibly vote for as their presidential "front runners": Mad Cow McCain and "RUDY!!!" Take-Your-Guns Guiliani. The populists have bought in to that drivel because they a) Don't know any better. b) With Satan on the other side, it sets the stage for the next surge in populist political erections that usually last a couple cycles. That will be interesting, because people like Ross Perot and Jesse "The Idiot" "Ventura" really queered the pitch for populists for a long, long time. People need to forget what LOSERS (i.e., "Patsy's") they are before they can re-emerge. Blowhard Bill O'Reilly seems to be inadvertantly working hard to keep that memory alive...

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (750336)	9/28/2006 3:00:04 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

LOL!!!!!!!! What was supposed to be 'offensive' about me turning the EXACT SAME 'logic' employed by the article you posted, on it's head to show how ridiculous it actually was? (Don't you REALIZE that --- by calling that particular argument 'offensive' you are calling the EXACT SAME STYLE ARGUMENT EMPLOYED IN THE PIECE YOU POSTED 'offensive' as well. :-) In effect (although perhaps you haven't noticed it yet...) agreeing with my satire about the silly attempt at so-called 'logic' the author used. ----------------------------------------------------- Regarding the WORLD CLASS illogic of the editorial piece you posted from OpinionJournal, Al Qaeda in Iraq? How Could This Be?, where it concluded: "All right, all right, we know the argument is that if Saddam Hussein hadn't been toppled, Faruq wouldn't have been in Iraq. That is, he wouldn't have been in Iraq where allied troops could kill him. This is supposed to be an argument against our presence there?" Let me get this right... the TERRORIST escaped from a PRISON under American Military control, then went to Iraq (also under 'our control' now, and where he gained entry because the Dictator is no longer in control), and was then KILLED. Is this SUPPOSED to be an ARGUMENT for RELEASING TERRORISTS from PRISON everywhere... so they can then be killed in battle against our guys?????????????????????????? Of ALL the ILLOGICAL B.S. I've heard this year, THAT has to take the cake as the MOST RIDICULOUS MISMASH OF ILLOGIC OF ALL! ---------------------------------------------------- FOR THE HARD OF HEARING: No, Peter... CLEARLY neither ('is supposed to be an argument against our presence there?', and 'Is this SUPPOSED to be an ARGUMENT for RELEASING TERRORISTS from PRISON everywhere?') is a logical or REAL argument. They are BOTH strawmen, FAKE arguments raised merely to confuse the issue and mislead the ... er... folks who might be a little slow on the uptake. Get that: Strawmen. FAKE arguments. NOT logical.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (750336)	9/28/2006 3:02:45 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769667

Poll: Iraqis back attacks on U.S. troops By BARRY SCHWEID AP DIPLOMATIC WRITER Thursday, September 28, 2006 · Last updated 7:01 a.m. PT seattlepi.nwsource.com WASHINGTON -- <bAbout six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, and slightly more than that want their government to ask U.S. troops to leave within a year, according to a poll in that country. The Iraqis also have negative views of Osama bin Laden, according to the early September poll of 1,150. The poll, done for University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, found: -Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents. -About 61 percent approved of the attacks - up from 47 percent in January. A solid majority of Shiite and Sunni Arabs approved of the attacks, according to the poll. The increase came mostly among Shiite Iraqis. -An overwhelmingly negative opinion of terror chief bin Laden and more than half, 57 percent, disapproving of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. -Three-fourths say they think the United States plans to keep military bases in Iraq permanently. -A majority of Iraqis, 72 percent, say they think Iraq will be one state five years from now. Shiite Iraqis were most likely to feel that way, though a majority of Sunnis and Kurds also believed that would be the case. The PIPA poll, which included an oversample of 150 Sunni Iraqis, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The State Department, meanwhile, has also conducted its own poll, something it does periodically, spokesman Sean McCormack said. The State Department poll found that two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, according to The Washington Post. McCormack declined to discuss details of the department's Iraq poll. "What I hear from government representatives and other anecdotal evidence that you hear from Iraqis that is collected by embassy personnel and military personnel is that Iraqis do appreciate our presence there," he said. "They do understand the reasons for it, they do understand that we don't want to or we don't intend to be there indefinitely." Iraqi officials have said Iraq's security was improving and expanding throughout the country, and most U.S. troops might be able to leave eventually. Last week, Iraqi President Jalal Talibani told the United Nations that coalition forces should remain in Iraq until Iraqi security forces are "capable of putting an end to terrorism and maintaining stability and security." --- On the Net: Program on International Policy Attitudes: pipa.org

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (750336)	9/28/2006 3:50:57 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Re: "The point is yet another dangerous Al Qaeda was being harbored by Saddam...." Peter, are you insane? Or is it just that you didn't even BOTHER to read the article you yourself posted? The article posted was talking about Omar al-Faruq, labeled as a 'high ranking al Qaeda operative' who ESCAPED FROM A US MILITARY-RUN PRISON IN AFGHANISTAN LAST YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!! (YOU KNOW: 2005........) AND THEN WENT TO IRAQ --- WHERE HE WAS CAUGHT THIS YEAR HIDING OUT IN BASRA... a Shiite dominant area. Now --- where WAS SH in '2005'?????????????? (That's right: in PRISON.) So, how in the HELL could you think this sorry case was an example of SH 'allowing al Qaeda to operate in Iraq'?????????? You'd have to be nuts to think that! (Unless you believe that SH is SECRETLY running the country and the Americans from his prison cell, LOL!) P-L-E-A-S-E!