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: J_F_Shepard who wrote (533159)	11/29/2009 12:33:32 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575538

"2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease> c : variance, odds 3" According to i-node, anyone who commits a crime using these definitions, should be tried in a military tribunal...

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (533159)	11/29/2009 9:40:44 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575538

"1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations So, when the "civil war" in Iraq was underway, as we were all told it was, what "states or nations" were involved? The answer, of course, is that a war between any two parties can be a "civil war". In fact, only in the broad category of a "national war" are we discussing wars between nations or states. All that said, the argument as to whether we're at war or not is misdirection. The real question is whether we will allow another attack to occur by treating it as a criminal matter. What will you and CJ say if Obama and Holder cause another attack that kills thousands in this country? Will you then admit you were wrong and express regret? I think not. You will blame it on GWB and move forward. You're scoundrels. Both of you.