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 (526564)	11/6/2009 12:59:47 PM
From: jlallen	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574855

Only an idiot takes your position....which explains where you are.... J.

To: combjelly who wrote (526564)	11/6/2009 1:31:46 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574855

If the documents aren't genuine, than the charges are unsubstantiated. If someone typed out a document claiming that Obama used to use heroin, and the documents where proved to be falsifications, then yes technically proving the documents to be false, doesn't prove that he didn't use heroin. But the charge should be seriously entertained. Its to easy to create a false charge, and too hard to prove a negative.

To: combjelly who wrote (526564)	11/9/2009 12:47:39 PM
From: Joe NYC	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574855

Look, I am sorry if you feel I am challenging your God. There is nothing idiotic about it. It is the truth. The truth is, the document was fabricated. I remember you going to great lengths (years ago) defending them as possibly not being fabricated. By now, I thought you gave up that ghost. 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. So at best, we have he said / she said - about about something a dead person might have said. So you really have nothing solid. The only thing that is solid is fraud perpetrated by Dan Rather, his staff, working together with the "source" of the fraudulent documents - a partisan Democrat. The intention of this fraud was to influence the outcome of the election.