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: Joe NYC who wrote (526460)	11/6/2009 12:44:43 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1586981

I am surprised you have not given up on this idiotic explanation. So the documents might have been faked, but the information was not false. Ahhh.... Falsified but true. Got it. I almost forgot.... LOL. Falsified but true. That's worthy of a Clinton deposition.

To: Joe NYC who wrote (526460)	11/6/2009 8:34:51 AM
From: jlallen	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586981

lol CJ is giving ted a run for his money as thread moron....

To: Joe NYC who wrote (526460)	11/6/2009 9:55:32 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 1586981

Falsified but true ROTFL I'll bet everyone cj knows has falsified important documents. He probably even believes that the forged certificate of birth Obama posted was accurate despite being forged.

To: Joe NYC who wrote (526460)	11/6/2009 11:46:22 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1586981

"I am surprised you have not given up on this idiotic explanation." Look, I am sorry if you feel I am challenging your God. There is nothing idiotic about it. It is the truth. "Ahhh.... Falsified but true. Got it. I almost forgot...." Yet another straw man. I am disappointed in you. There are two issues that you are conflating. One, are the documents genuine? Two, is the information false? Those aren't the same issue, despite your attempts to spin it that way. There are good reasons to think that the documents are not copies of the ones they are purported to be. The abbreviations and terminology argues that. The information contained in them is not in the same boat. The unit secretary vouches for that. Those are the facts. Regardless of the provenance of the documents. I grant you that Rove et al were successful in conflating the issues in the media's mind. But that doesn't mean they created a new reality. Despite what you are pretending.

To: Joe NYC who wrote (526460)	11/6/2009 11:46:22 AM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1586981

"I am surprised you have not given up on this idiotic explanation." Look, I am sorry if you feel I am challenging your God. There is nothing idiotic about it. It is the truth. "Ahhh.... Falsified but true. Got it. I almost forgot...." Yet another straw man. I am disappointed in you. There are two issues that you are conflating. One, are the documents genuine? Two, is the information false? Those aren't the same issue, despite your attempts to spin it that way. There are good reasons to think that the documents are not copies of the ones they are purported to be. The abbreviations and terminology argues that. The information contained in them is not in the same boat. The unit secretary vouches for that. Those are the facts. Regardless of the provenance of the documents. I grant you that Rove et al were successful in conflating the issues in the media's mind. But that doesn't mean they created a new reality. Despite what you are pretending.