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 (877829)	8/4/2015 1:39:24 PM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Recommended By locogringo PKRBKR Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571355

>> It was true of the usenet groups. I first logged onto usenet in 1984. There was one group, net.flame, that existed solely for the purpose of flame wars. When someone started flaming, they got directed to net.flame. And that group was mostly jibberish. The reality is that this conduct has little to do with the type of forum and everything to do with political ideology. There is no doubt, whatsoever, that most liberals, rather than engaging on topics, will either have to dominate the subject or they will terminate the conversation. Not all, but most. You wouldn't recognize this because you're a liberal. But we see it all the time. Out to dinner with friends; here; on Facebook; on other forums. Everywhere. You can dish it out but you can't take it. My SIL will bring up politics at the table and how we all need to get along, but when you say, "What about the debt Obama is leaving for your children?" she'll get up and leave the table rather than engage. My brother, her husband, says she's the same at home: she'll bitch about Bush but then can't handle any criticism of whoever she votes for. The other thing that is so problematic about liberals is they're going to vote for the candidate no matter what. A lot of Republicans will, no doubt. But Obama should never have been elected because he clearly did not have the qualifications to run the federal government. Of course, it has been proved true, but before the election in '08 it was self-evident. Anyone who looked at his credentials knew he was unqualified. But you voted for him anyway. And even though Hillary stupidly put one of the most important email servers in the world in a broom closet, you'll vote for her if she is the candidate. After she clearly exposed the country to serious harm, that means nothing to you. If any Republican candidate runs against her, yes, I'll support them. But if you put Jim Webb up as a candidate and the Republican nominee is Pataki or Graham or Huckabee or someone, I'm going to at least consider voting for Webb. And when it comes to a president breaking the law, you are FINE with it as long as it is YOUR president. Bush breaks the law, it is a calamity. But Obama has broken the law countless times and you aren't bothered in the slightest. When he skirts the Constitution that's okay with you because the end justifies the means. The intermediate-to-long term consequences be damned.