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: locogringo who wrote (1199130)	2/6/2020 2:57:26 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	3 Recommendations Recommended By Bonefish IC720 locogringo Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574199

I never compare who did what so that means. I look at the base of facts. Based on the facts I look for a or the logical objective truth. I then make my decision. This is criminal guilt or innocence. Facts are weighted in American law jurisprudence. This case was simple. It was all he said she said and nothing said had a factual basis for finding guilty. Inferring a motive to invent guilt is the realm of psychics to be considered proof. There are no psychics and pigs do not fly. Therefore Anyone saying guilty is mentality defective, ignorant of American law jurisprudence or a lying sacks of feces asshole. Courage, integrity and honor may or may not have any bearing. I am not a psychic. I also do not believe most who voted guilty are mentally defective or ignorant of American law jurisprudence. I cannot be specific but I believe most are a lying sacks of feces asshole. In Romney's case it does not matter, any of the above flaws make him unfit to serve in any public office. That same judgement applies to all who voted guilty. They are unfit to serve in any public office, And nancy is to me mentally unfit and lying sacks of feces asshole.