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: combjelly who wrote (336357)	5/4/2007 1:13:17 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573116

CJ, > You are so blindly partisan, you have no choice. LOL, the first rule of partisan politics. Despite your false portrayals, we are not becoming more and more of a one-party police state. That's the same logic that the "Bush is Hitler" idiots employ. Tenchusatsu

To: combjelly who wrote (336357)	5/4/2007 6:19:00 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573116

Of course you do, Tim. You are so blindly partisan, you have no choice. Backing up one highly spun or even directly incorrect statements with fiction, and ad-hominem isn't much of an argument. As for permission to declare marital law for any reason whatsoever, that's at best a major exaggeration. Allowing greater military participation in law enforcement and disaster relief isn't declaring martial law. As for lobbyists, the Dems take lobbyist's money as well. The "K-Street" project, for all of its faults, was not and effort to subvert the constitution to keep the Republicans in power. It was an attempt to shift the balance of lobbyists more to the Republican side. Was it partisan? Of course. So are most party political maneuvering. Did it turn out to include corruption? Yes (that's the main part of what I referred to by "all its faults"), but it wasn't very sinister, just fairly ordinary partisanship leavened with a bit of corruption. Also it wasn't the main idea behind the "permanent majority". The "permanent majority" idea has more to do with the electoral college advantage that Republicans where perceived to have, combined with the fact that overall Republican leaning states where growing faster than Dem leaning states, and some other trends. It was wildly optimistic, and included a lot of unrealistic assumptions, but it wasn't, as you imply, a plot against our country or our liberty.