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: Sdgla who wrote (237766)	7/24/2007 5:24:10 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 281500

Parsons is a fn hypocrite of the highest order. In addition to being a GWSDCS bigot and jerk of the first order..... J.

To: Sdgla who wrote (237766)	7/24/2007 6:52:58 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 281500

You don't think the LDS (that's liberal derangement syndrome- those poor righties unhinged by the thoughts of liberals) crowd is crying? They've been crying for a long time. First they were crying "If you're not with us your against us." Then they were crying "But the democrats thought the same thing- so even though we did something stupid, the democrats didn't tell us we were wrong." Now they are crying "Just give us more time. Sure, we've been stupid, and wrong, and everything has turned to crap- but just give us a little more time..." Yeah. And it's BDS to blame Bush? And it's BDS to be a ltitle sick of the rotten cesspool of a billion dollar mess Bush has gotten us in to? If that's BDS, I'd say BDS is the rational response. Some of the politicians are two faced- not all of them supported this action, though- how about THEM. And some politicians manages to say "Ooops- I blew it. This was a mistake." I did not support this. If you went back and read my posts you would find I said 1. preemptive war was a fools game, and would increase instability globally 2. that I did not think there was enough evidence that Saddam was a threat to the US and that the Saudis were a much bigger threat and 3. that the potential problems with an Iraqi invasion (which I based on my knowledge of India at partition and the composition of Iraq and it's past problems) were civil war, the rise of a Muslim religious leader or the rise of a new strong man equal to or worse than Saddam (or a possible combination of strong man AND religious leader). What Parson's may or may not be has zero to do with what I am saying. I couldn't care a fig about your personal problem with Parsons, or what you think about him. Parsons is a red herring to the issues I am talking about, and I have zero interest in what you have to say about him. You want to insult him, do it in a post to him. Please don't expect me to participate in something so silly and sordid.